homintern is on your IGNORE list.

homintern wrote:

Will we be able to make the burqua compulsory for all women?

Only for katoey, I think  

Gone Fishing is on your IGNORE list.

homintern wrote:

Will we be able to make the burqua compulsory for all women?

it should be compulsory for you.

If you look at the article in the Times which was the original cause of all this:

Quote:

There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.

Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

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.

And this is exactly why I had my original concerns about this news.  In an inheritance case like this, who "consents" to abide by Sharia law?  The daughters, who inherit exactly one-half of what a son inherits?  And that was why my original reaction was that England would be better served by one, English law, which supports the equality of the sexes and the freedom of religion -- which Sharia law most definitely does not.

But we're not yet at the point where thieves are getting their hands chopped off in London, so my sincere apologies to all.

it does indeed say what you write Henry Cate re; inheritance laws but that is the way inheritance law works under Sharia law where the son is always regarded first.

But the point is-English law does apply and is available to every citizen..no person opting to go to a tribunal is forced to-they must agree to be bound by the result beforehand but they will know the consequences and most certainly, women will be aware of a likely outcome. One must assume that they agree with this sytem ie : the law treating sons as more equal than daughters or else they would simply apply under normal British law.

Cohersion to apply under an arbitration court or this new Sharia style tribunal would be treated like any other type of legal intimidation which carries severe penalties.

Honestly-is this any different than say, the Ozarks where brothers are required to mary their next door cousin..and usualy at the age of 12 ?

Lunchtime O'Booze wrote:

it does indeed say what you write Henry Cate re; inheritance laws but that is the way inheritance law works under Sharia law where the son is always regarded first.

But the point is-English law does apply and is available to every citizen..no person opting to go to a tribunal is forced to-they must agree to be bound by the result beforehand but they will know the consequences and most certainly, women will be aware of a likely outcome. One must assume that they agree with this sytem ie : the law treating sons as more equal than daughters or else they would simply apply under normal British law.

Cohersion to apply under an arbitration court or this new Sharia style tribunal would be treated like any other type of legal intimidation which carries severe penalties.

Honestly-is this any different than say, the Ozarks where brothers are required to mary their next door cousin..and usualy at the age of 12 ?

So you're happy that England has reached that high ground? :-)   (Sorry, I could not resist that one!!)

I do not have much knowledge about British law and British society. But it seems that the allowance of an arbitration system based on laws derived from religious beliefs destroys the integrity of a nation. After all, the reason why secular laws work is because everyone is viewed the same. If we are going to start setting up legal systems, even among willing participants, they kind of destroy the notion of one country. So, if members of other religions decide that they don't want their affairs to be decided by secular courts, are they then in fact setting up separate legal systems?

Maybe the British public has different views of what constitute unity for the U.K. In the U.S., arbitration is acknowledged, but the arbitrators still have to work within the context of state, federal, or common law. Otherwise, imagine, for example, if members of the Mormom church decide to arbitrate their affairs according to Mormom laws?

homintern is on your IGNORE list.

homintern wrote:

  If, on the other hand, there is a dispute between two Mormons about something on which the law does not prescribe a single way of resolving the issue, but their Church does have a view, and both are willing to submit themselves to the Church, I don't see the harm.  Many places offer various forms of arbitration without recourse to the expensive Court system - the UK, for example, already has an extensive system for resolving commercial disputes - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitral_tribunal

I'm afraid the problem in the US is a cultural one - there must always be someone to blame!  For that, I blame the Puritans

U.S. specific? Maybe so, specially since the U.S. was originally populated with refugees who sought to practice their versions of religion free of government interference. Maybe that is why we are still having this tension of separating the powers of religion from the ones of government.

However, what is there to start different sects and then say that secular courts have no jurisdictiom because the members consent to settle their differences by their own? So, from civil laws dealing with property, you may easily go to the criminal law arena. So, if members of the same religious group agree that if one kills the other one, the quilty person should be stoned, will that thumb secular criminal laws?

What I am afraid is the creation of separate classes of people when there is no actual need to do so. Anyway, what should I know. From what the board members here seem to imply, it is perfectly ok for such religious tribunals to exist. I personally think that they destroy what a secular state should be.

homintern is on your IGNORE list.

Davey612 wrote:

I do not have much knowledge about British law and British society. But it seems that the allowance of an arbitration system based on laws derived from religious beliefs destroys the integrity of a nation. After all, the reason why secular laws work is because everyone is viewed the same. If we are going to start setting up legal systems, even among willing participants, they kind of destroy the notion of one country. So, if members of other religions decide that they don't want their affairs to be decided by secular courts, are they then in fact setting up separate legal systems?

Maybe the British public has different views of what constitute unity for the U.K. In the U.S., arbitration is acknowledged, but the arbitrators still have to work within the context of state, federal, or common law. Otherwise, imagine, for example, if members of the Mormom church decide to arbitrate their affairs according to Mormom laws?

well you should have ! I see your profile says you are from San Fransisco and all US law and those of former British colonies ( New Zealand, the Bahamas etc)are based upon British law which is far diffrerent to the way the law and courts operate in many Euorpean countries.

Remember : these are tribunals which are common in most countries that follow the British style of law..but I don't know if they have them in the US.

All this involves is the 2 parties agreeing beforehand to sit down-usually in a fairly informal manner in a room with an adjudicator who may be a judge, barrister or lawyer. They can have friends and advisers accompany them. The only requirement is that both parties must agree to accept the outcome and that is to save time by -if one won't accept the decision-then going to court thus running up enormous costs. But they are not forced to attend arbitration.

In some cases in British law a judge may order both parties to arbitration-in an attempt to avoid high legal costs and when that happens and the parties don't agree, they can still go back to court and sue each other accordingly.

In this Sharia case it is a perfect example of how wonderful the British law is at attempting to be fair to all. The inheritance matter is a perfect example even though it appears to discriminate against women ( and they do not have to go to a "Sharia" tribunal) -this accepts that many Muslim woman want to be judged under Sharia law and accept the findings.

It is no diffferent to allowing Muslims to worship in Mosque, Jews in Synagouges, Methodists in Church or Homitern who holds midnight masses with strange old hags in black gowns and attempt to conjur up Beelzebub. No-one is forced to attend any religious ceremoney they do not wish to.(although in Homitern's
case he did sell his soul and that of his first born to the Devil so has no choice-particularly as there will be no baby Homitern obviously he is damned for all time)

## one problem the UK doesn't have is a whole lot of states all with different laws. Although they should of course get out of Northern Ireland and allow that to be governed under Irish law which isn't too disimilar and exquisitley fair as all Irishmen are..and that's from a completey unbiased source.

homintern is on your IGNORE list.

A better analogy would be the truth.  There has been a lot of palaver on this subject, but one statement stands out:

Quote:

In this Sharia case it is a perfect example of how wonderful the British law is at attempting to be fair to all. The inheritance matter is a perfect example even though it appears to discriminate against women ( and they do not have to go to a "Sharia" tribunal) -this accepts that many Muslim woman want to be judged under Sharia law and accept the findings.

Let's just zero in on this "inheritance matter" and how "wonderful" English law is, in the year 2008.

"British law" is so "wonderful" because it is "fair to all" -- including woman-hating Muslim men.

The poster says that Sharia "appears to discriminate against women." Horse shit!  It DOES discriminate against women.  It does not APPEAR to do so, it actually DOES SO, on a daily basis.  Has our honorable opponent not noticed the rise in "honor" murders -- basically meaning Muslim brothers and fathers killing their own woman for daring to oppose them?

As for "they do not have to go to a Sharia tribunal," you have to realize who you're dealing with here.  As the Godfather once said, "Well, up to you.  Either your signature goes on this document, or your brains."

So Britain, that sceptred isle, has now established a Special Place for people who do NOT accept the British law.  "Hey, Muslim dude. Got a problem with your sister?  Bring her over here, and we'll make it all look legal."

On another note, I see that more than 50% of Frenchmen would like to move to America, if it were possible. "But I thought the French were anti-American?"  Well, perhaps, until the "youths" began taking over their cities...and some Frenchmen woke up, smelled the coffee, and realized that (somehow) the "youths" were ARMED AND DANGEROUS.  Law-abiding Frenchmen of course had no arms and could not buy any.

There is a parallel with Europe as a whole, which has basically disarmed under the American umbrella.  Name me a European country (aside from England/Britain) which could actually fight a war.  Nope.  They all saved that money spent on the military, and spent it on "social programs."

Which brings us back to Barack, once again.

now Henry..I know you are really Homintern and everything you say is designed to upset me and prevent me from demanding the so many luncheon dates he owes me.

You are forgetting..whatever one thinks of Sharia Law or the Muslim religion-those who adher to it believe in it. So whatever the good book say, goes.

Just as the Bible says similarly outrageous things about women's status ( although not the Great and First Socialist Jesus Christ who simply said very nice things about us all loving each other)

let's face it Henry-you are that funny old woman with the frizzy grey hair who was featured on television worldwide telling John McCain that she didn't like Barak Obama because he was an Arab..whereupon McCain snatched the microphone and one could see little cogs going heywire in his head and saying.."what the fuck is going on here"?

As for those 50% of Frenchmen who want to move to the USA.- why would'nt' they when they have to suffer that horrible South of France with it's awful beaches and French food and the Mediterranean when they could move to Tuscon ,Cleveland ,Jacksom,Las Vegas and all those fabulousy cities with stupendous restautants ranging from Wendys through to McDonalds , cuisine to melt any Frenchman's palate and most certainly a place that makes San Tropez, Cannes , and lets not forget Paris with all those hideious street side cafes..I can tell you where I'd choose to be..Akron Alabama leaves these places for dead.

But here is  another reaon al those frogs want to flea France ( and who wouldn't want to get out of a horrible town like Aige Morte with it's 200 year old stone wall surrounding a charming village and a stupendoeus beach 3 kilos away where thousands of French families bathe completely nude while gangs of French youths wander about, totally unclothed. You just know they would rather be in smog ridden LA !

No Henry,the reason 32 million  French citizens want to flee France is because RICHARD PERLE has a house in the South of France !