Sharia courts in the UK

[semi-pro waster]

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

Because they (it seems we share an assumption) seek another to validate them.

So it would appear, there is at least one assumption in common. Surely you should be happy that Muslims are acknowledging the primacy of British law and legislative process. I still don't see how this removes choice, it adds choice if anything.

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

What has happened is that a foreign political structure has gained recognition within our system.

You see this tolerance as a bad thing, I do not provided British law retains its primacy and I see no immediate danger of this changing. I fear we will always fundamentally disagree on this point.

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

Perhaps the lack of pride in your own 'house' is what convince you to seek equality with those that have not earned it.

If that is your reading of my comments then so be it. That can be something for you to speculate on as you see fit.

[cleanbluesky]

Originally Posted by Mark

Therein lies the hole in your argument.

Sharia courts could have been enforceable in the UK before, and they could have been enforceable for the past 100 years or so. Jewish Beth Din courts are in the same situation, and their decisions were enforceable.

I'll repeat - there has been no change in law - only a change in how the Sharia courts apply existing law. This has nothing to do with any act of Government as far as I can see.

Has anyone said there HAS been a change in the law? Is that where you personally draw the line at realising we've got a problem, or would you have selective attention at that point as well?

Sharia courts have been given a licence to enforce their crooked and biased interpretation of certain legal matters, official censure of sexism is definitely a step backward in this country.

[cleanbluesky]

Originally Posted by semi-pro waster

So it would appear, there is at least one assumption in common. Surely you should be happy that Muslims are acknowledging the primacy of British law and legislative process. I still don't see how this removes choice, it adds choice if anything.

If they recognised British law they wouldn't need sharia.

You see this tolerance as a bad thing, I do not provided British law retains its primacy and I see no immediate danger of this changing. I fear we will always fundamentally disagree on this point.

Any move that makes sexism more prevalent or seem more legitimate is a bad thing.

If that is your reading of my comments then so be it. That can be something for you to speculate on as you see fit.

I was actually fishing on that comment, but I'd say the stiffness of your lack of reaction confirms it. I think its a common problem and not one that I blame you for, we have grown up in a climate where we are simply not taught to value everything about ourselves. It makes us more easily controllable by authority in my opinion, and more timid in the face of competition.

[semi-pro waster]

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

If they recognised British law they wouldn't need sharia.

Primacy of British law, that is the important part. If you want to say that sharia requires to be recognised by British law then it has to be acknowledging subserviency - it doesn't work both ways which is what you seem to be saying with British law is and is not powerful.

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

Any move that makes sexism more prevalent or seem more legitimate is a bad thing.

And funnily enough I'd agree with you, sexism is a bad thing generally. However if that is what people want then that is up to them, I'm simply not in favour of forcing people to do something if they do not wish to which would include equality.

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

I was actually fishing on that comment, but I'd say the stiffness of your lack of reaction confirms it. I think its a common problem and not one that I blame you for, we have grown up in a climate where we are simply not taught to value everything about ourselves. It makes us more easily controllable by authority in my opinion, and more timid in the face of competition.

And why do you think I chose not to bite? Perhaps because I recognised it for the lure it clearly was. Very gracious of you not to blame me but, and I mean this in the least offensive way possible, your opinion of me matters very little to me.

Do you actually mean that we should value ourselves over everything or everything above ourselves? The latter is largely socialism and the former more capitalistic to put it in crude terms and the way it is written the second sentence largely conflicts with the first unless you mean we should value ourselves over everything else.

[cleanbluesky]

Originally Posted by semi-pro waster

Primacy of British law, that is the important part. If you want to say that sharia requires to be recognised by British law then it has to be acknowledging subserviency - it doesn't work both ways which is what you seem to be saying with British law is and is not powerful.

That's an interesting question - it recognises that the British courts have power, but I seriously doubt that a religion would afford 'sovereignty' of law to anyone by God.

And funnily enough I'd agree with you, sexism is a bad thing generally. However if that is what people want then that is up to them, I'm simply not in favour of forcing people to do something if they do not wish to which would include equality.

It is not a question of forcing anyone to do anything, it represents the confidence to take the tools away from people who adopt these attitudes. If that attitude were extended that we shouldn't stop doing people from what they want, even if they want to harm others, we'd have NO law.

And why do you think I chose not to bite? Perhaps because I recognised it for the lure it clearly was. Very gracious of you not to blame me but, and I mean this in the least offensive way possible, your opinion of me matters very little to me.

I hope you're not angry...

... but I meant everything I said.

Do you actually mean that we should value ourselves over everything or everything above ourselves? The latter is largely socialism and the former more capitalistic to put it in crude terms and the way it is written the second sentence largely conflicts with the first unless you mean we should value ourselves over everything else.

When it comes to competition we should value ourselves above everything, and also seek to improve.

What I'm actually advocating is recognising attributes that we posses and recognising our hard-earned superiority over others, rather than believing that we should fein an equality with those who do not deserve it.

[semi-pro waster]

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

It is not a question of forcing anyone to do anything, it represents the confidence to take the tools away from people who adopt these attitudes. If that attitude were extended that we shouldn't stop doing people from what they want, even if they want to harm others, we'd have NO law.

It's about drawing a line in the sand to use a cliche, I just happen to draw mine in a different place to you.

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

I hope you're not angry...

... but I meant everything I said.

Who has delusions of grandeur now? Don't worry about it for a second, the chances of you successfully making me angry are very slim. As I said before if that is what you want to think of me it is of no consequence to me.

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

When it comes to competition we should value ourselves above everything, and also seek to improve.

What I'm actually advocating is recognising attributes that we posses and recognising our hard-earned superiority over others, rather than believing that we should fein an equality with those who do not deserve it.

Sounds dangerously American posi-speak to me but an interesting point of view irrespective of that.

[cleanbluesky]

Originally Posted by semi-pro waster

Who has delusions of grandeur now? Don't worry about it for a second, the chances of you successfully making me angry are very slim. As I said before if that is what you want to think of me it is of no consequence to me.

Good, you should be yourself.

Sounds dangerously American posi-speak to me but an interesting point of view irrespective of that.

It's more than an interesting point, people consantly judge their own value in relation to others - rarely conciously - cultures should do the same as well. Unless we learn what we prize in ourselves and what we DON'T prize in others - then our progess will be at a standstill

[AboveTheSalt]

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

... we should fein an equality ...

feign?

[Mark]

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

Sharia courts have been given a licence to enforce their crooked and biased interpretation of certain legal matters,

If those who accept and/or live by those views want to submit to Sharia courts, then so be it. I wouldn't, and I doubt most non-Muslims would, but why should we restrict giving them their choice provided that it doesn't remove rights from the rest of us?

official censure of sexism is definitely a step backward in this country.

Point accepted as far as I'm personally concerned, but it seems Muslim culture doesn't see it that way. If we're to demand respect of our traditions from them, should we not at least make the effort to reciprocate. Do we have the right to impose our aspirations to equality on them when we can barely achieve them ourselves?

[cleanbluesky]

Originally Posted by Mark

If those who accept and/or live by those views want to submit to Sharia courts, then so be it. I wouldn't, and I doubt most non-Muslims would, but why should we restrict giving them their choice provided that it doesn't remove rights from the rest of us?

They have no 'right' to have their view of the law recognised by the state, and this issue is not about choice to practice their law as choice is abstract and cannot be given or taken away from a person. You can limit their options but not their capacity to choose, if they see sharia as such a priority they should go live in the ditch-countries that use it in jurisprudence. The move contravenes our so called 'commitment' to equality.

Point accepted as far as I'm personally concerned, but it seems Muslim culture doesn't see it that way. If we're to demand respect of our traditions from them, should we not at least make the effort to reciprocate. Do we have the right to impose our aspirations to equality on them when we can barely achieve them ourselves?

You've been fed a lie that respect is granted mutually. In my experience they already respect us for our achievements rather than because of our attitudes towards them - that isn't saying that foreign cultures should be treated poorly, we should just recognise our superiority where we hold it and seek to learn in areas that we do not.

Equality is earned, not awarded.