Sharia courts in the UK

[semi-pro waster]

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

Because the state seems to want to take the tools of inequality away from the population, they shouldn't introduce new ones merely to be falsely deferent to a backward enclave within our borders.

I'd be so much happier it we could get some sort of consensus on these sorts of things, some people complain that the government interfere too much, others that they don't do enough.

Anyway, back to the point. It's arbitration, if people want to submit themselves to the authority of Ronald McDonald and his court of cheeseburgers where all fees are levied in Big Macs then that is up to them; I'll probably think them stupid but if that's the worst accusation I can level at them then it isn't enough for me to try and stop them.

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

You can take whatever place you want, you should have the confidence to stand up for what you believe in if you think sharia is unfair.

Stating what I think of something is very different to saying that someone can't do something (or forcing their compliance more to the point) just because I disagree with it.

[cleanbluesky]

Originally Posted by semi-pro waster

I'd be so much happier it we could get some sort of consensus on these sorts of things, some people complain that the government interfere too much, others that they don't do enough.

Anyway, back to the point. It's arbitration, if people want to submit themselves to the authority of Ronald McDonald and his court of cheeseburgers where all fees are levied in Big Macs then that is up to them; I'll probably think them stupid but if that's the worst accusation I can level at them then it isn't enough for me to try and stop them.

No, its not. You're intoxicated on the myth of freedom without recognising the system we live in. Besides, they require the recognition of English society - they are ASKING PERMISSION, which means they have obviously discarded their oportunity for 'choice'...

And its not as if the issue is that simple. They can have all the sharia courts they want, doesn't mean a thing, what they want is a small concession towards Islamic values being enshrined by English institution - small steps, inch by inch... this is a political move as much as it is a legal or religious one

Stating what I think of something is very different to saying that someone can't do something (or forcing their compliance more to the point) just because I disagree with it.

You've delusions of grandeur if you think its your choice. You should simply have more confidence in your opinion, if you think something is bad for others (and indeed society itself) you should feel free to express that.

[chumpychops]

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

You've delusions of grandeur

That's rich, coming from someone who clearly considers himself to be the bastard offspring of Freud, Kant and Jung.

[Mark]

Why is it a political move? They're applying a 10-year-old law that has been applied in the same manner by other parts of society. The Times article is somewhat misleading in that is implies that Government has actively promoted or encouraged these new courts, whereas what they'e actually done at most is acquiesced and acknowledged that what has been done falls entirely within the law as it already existed.

There is no special provision for Sharia law. If there were then I might come closer to your point of view, but there isn't.

Do you have a problem with Muslim society in general? Your comments about 'backward enclave' suggests that you might be attempting to disguise an attack on Muslim society in general.

[cleanbluesky]

Originally Posted by Mark

Why is it a political move? They're applying a 10-year-old law that has been applied in the same manner by other parts of society. The Times article is somewhat misleading in that is implies that Government has actively promoted or encouraged these new courts, whereas what they'e actually done at most is acquiesced and acknowledged that what has been done falls entirely within the law as it already existed.

There is no special provision for Sharia law. If there were then I might come closer to your point of view, but there isn't.

You'll notice that the article states that the court is official and that the ruling are now enforceable whereas they were not before. It is a politic move because it represents greater accommodation of Islam within the UK.

Do you have a problem with Muslim society in general? Your comments about 'backward enclave' suggests that you might be attempting to disguise an attack on Muslim society in general.

Not a problem, but a quick analysis of Muslim countries shows a general lack of development in most and only amongst the ruling classes in a few. Also, having been to a Muslim country, I understand how they see our society and also the small differences between Islamic values and those in the West. I definitely think ours are better, for many reasons.

[semi-pro waster]

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

No, its not. You're intoxicated on the myth of freedom without recognising the system we live in. Besides, they require the recognition of English society - they are ASKING PERMISSION, which means they have obviously discarded their oportunity for 'choice'...

Am I indeed? I'd always assumed freedom within limits to be a good thing, more fool me. Although I'm afraid you've lost me, how have they (I'm assuming you mean Muslims here) discarded their opportunity for choice? If a sharia tribunal is allowed (and it has been) as an arbitration service then I'd say they have a choice.

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

And its not as if the issue is that simple. They can have all the sharia courts they want, doesn't mean a thing, what they want is a small concession towards Islamic values being enshrined by English institution - small steps, inch by inch... this is a political move as much as it is a legal or religious one

If you say so, I don't see as quite so insidious or conniving but that's just me. What is being asked for is the recognition of arbitration agreements as binding - same as would be for any other arbitration panel, you've essentially formed a contract to abide by the decision laid down for you.

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

You've delusions of grandeur if you think its your choice. You should simply have more confidence in your opinion, if you think something is bad for others (and indeed society itself) you should feel free to express that.

Why is it not my choice to choose what I have to say? I'd always thought that was one of the nicer things about this country, I can choose what I want to say and be judged on it as appropriate.

I've got enough confidence in my opinions to express them as and where I think appropriate but I don't see that as meaning I've got to express an opinion on everything. I've usually gone with the view that I'll get my own house in order before telling other people exactly where they are going wrong. Principally because right and wrong is often a matter of perspective, what suits me does not automatically suit everyone else.

[cleanbluesky]

Originally Posted by semi-pro waster

Am I indeed? I'd always assumed freedom within limits to be a good thing, more fool me. Although I'm afraid you've lost me, how have they (I'm assuming you mean Muslims here) discarded their opportunity for choice? If a sharia tribunal is allowed (and it has been) as an arbitration service then I'd say they have a choice.

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

If you say so, I don't see as quite so insidious or conniving but that's just me. What is being asked for is the recognition of arbitration agreements as binding - same as would be for any other arbitration panel, you've essentially formed a contract to abide by the decision laid down for you.

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

Why is it not my choice to choose what I have to say? I'd always thought that was one of the nicer things about this country, I can choose what I want to say and be judged on it as appropriate.

I've got enough confidence in my opinions to express them as and where I think appropriate but I don't see that as meaning I've got to express an opinion on everything. I've usually gone with the view that I'll get my own house in order before telling other people exactly where they are going wrong.

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

[chumpychops]

CBS has a long history of xenophobia dressed up as enlightened criticism.

Scratch away the attempted sophistry and what you end up with is indistinguishable from what would be more commonly experienced at a BNP rally.

[cleanbluesky]

Originally Posted by chumpychops

CBS has a long history of xenophobia dressed up as enlightened criticism.

Scratch away the attempted sophistry and what you end up with is indistinguishable from what would be more commonly experienced at a BNP rally.

DEY TUK UR JABS

CBS is this, CBS is that... look at me, CBS... LOOOOK at meeee....

[Mark]

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

You'll notice that the article states that the court is official and that the ruling are now enforceable whereas they were not before.

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.