I am not making this up.

The Labor government which has been screwing Britain up for a decade or more has now finally committed a Fatal Error.  They are allowing Muslim sharia courts to enforce sharia law in Britain.

As if one country can stand with two utterly conflicting systems of law.

Among other things, this means that a poor Pakistani girl being forced into an arranged marriage will, if she appeals to the LAW, will find that she has actually appealed to a Muslim sharia court, which will throw her case out, and she has no right to appeal beyond that.

Could this be the death-knell of the multi-culti Kumbaya mindset?  

Or will it lead to the National Health performing free genital mutilations on Muslim girls???

Time will tell...

Hnery, what are you talking about?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31257_Sharia_Courts_in_Britain

and, if you would enjoy some pungent commentary, then this as well:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31416_Pat_Condell-_Welcome_to_Saudi_Britain

Does it really take an American to point out such things to the British voter?

Speaking as one who is actually here in the UK, I can confirm that the government has said it is prepared to allow moslems to settle their own civil (not criminal) disputes in their own courts provided all parties are willing participants AND providing that no UK criminal law has been infringed.  

Wherever UK criminal law has been infringed, the state legal process will swing into action just as it does now and will supersede the actions of the voluntary moslem court (which, note, has no jurisdiction whatsoever over non-moslems or anyone else who does not agree to its presiding over their case).  

The new system will, in other words, simply deal with civil disputes on a mutually acceptable basis.  It thus replicates the arrangements that have long been made by British Jews to settle their private civil disputes internally in Shin Beth courts.  And it is not dissimilar, as far as I can see, to Californian law that allows two participants in a civil dispute to mutually agree on an arbiter whose decision they agree will be final - the whole basis that allows the Judge Judy TV show to operate in dear Henry's homeland.

Henry Cate wrote:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31257_Sharia_Courts_in_Britain

and, if you would enjoy some pungent commentary, then this as well:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31416_Pat_Condell-_Welcome_to_Saudi_Britain

Does it really take an American to point out such things to the British voter?

If you are a gullible reader of hysterical right wing sites, you become a gullible hysterical fascist.

Despite Marsilius confirming everything I wrote.

If you take the case of a girl being forced into marriage -- and if you assume the families involved have enough power to get the case settled in a sharia court -- it's merely a civil matter, not a criminal one -- then you have a real revolution in British jurisprudence.

Oh, yes, it's all common-sense.  Nothing worth seeing here.  These aren't the droids you're looking for.

Of course, I believe that ANY parties in disagreement can submit to binding arbitration, but this recognition of sharia law in Britain does not smell like that to me.  It smells of Britons caving to Muslims because they are AFRAID of Muslims.

Time will tell.

I have finally been called a fascist!!!!!!!

Leave it to Brad the Dope to win the prize!

YAY!

"being forced" and "consenting to" are thought by most to be contradictory terms.

As Marsillius says Sharia Courts may be used as an arena of arbitration "provided all parties are willing participants AND providing that no UK criminal law has been infringed".
Somebody who asserted to have been forced into a marriage would not be regarded in an English or Scottish Court as a willing participant and might well have grounds for criminal allegations of rape, conspiracy and a number of other serious charges under criminal law depending on what actually happened.

Quote:

If you take the case of a girl being forced into marriage -- and if you assume the families involved have enough power to get the case settled in a sharia court -- it's merely a civil matter, not a criminal one -- then you have a real revolution in British jurisprudence.

Not even near to true Henry. The rules of Sharia may be used by an arbitration panel (which is what this is about)

Firstly, a coerced marriage is null under British law - and no arbitration can make it otherwise.

Secondly, coercion beyond what you might call "familial pressure" - imprisonment and/or any sort of violence - is a criminal offence, and totally outsdie the remit of any arbitration.

Thirdly, arbitration requires the consent of both parties - in this case the girl is one, not her family. If she was coerced into the arbitration, then that would be null.

There's not really anything new in this - it has always been open under English law to enter into a contract, or to resolve a dispute under any the rules of any system of law the parties freely agree to - English, French or for that matter Thai or Uzbek - so long as  this does not conflict with the laws of England. That's a matter of practicality - there's nothing to stop you setting up an agreement which mirrors, point by point, the rules of a foreign system of law which would then be enforceable under English law.

Arbitration has always been available under English law - the various Acts relating to it have largely been codifications of Common Law. It requires the two parties to a dispute to agree to that dispute being settled by an arbitration panel set up in a way agreed by them. A decision reached by arbitration is final, and enforceable by the courts, but is subject to review by them too. Arbitrators cannot make up the rules as they go along - their powers are strictly circumscribed.

They must act fairly (according to the legal definition of fairness, which is not necessarily the same as the everyday one)
They must conduct the arbitration in accordance with the rules that have been agreed.
They cannot conduct themselves in any way, or arrive at any decision that is contrary to English law.
They cannot in any way condone or exonerate criminal behaviour
They cannot act unless the parties involved have freely agreed to the arbitration, and had the capacity to do so.

If any of the above are breached, then their decisions can, and I am confident will, be struck down in court. The court can also overturn an arbitration on the grounds that it has been decided in a way that is manifestly not in keeping with the facts (although this is a tough test)

Hardly an adoption of Sharia law is it?

Incidentally, you will notice that I have throughout spoken of English law. There is no such thing as British law. Scotland, Northern Ireland or England (together with Wales) could, if they wished adopt Sharia - but none of them have.

There's a "U" in Labour.

Not that the Labour party has much to do with labour -much of the party's core support is from lazy spongers who choose to live a life of unemployed leisure of the back of the working man's taxes.
That's one more reason why our economy is such a mess -billions of pounds spent on people who make no useful contribution to the economy.
The main reason why they have stayed in power for so long is the unwavering support from the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation.

Henry Cate wrote:

I am not making this up.
..

Buit the sites that you read, and choose to believe, are.

Henry Cate wrote:

I have finally been called a fascist!!!!!!!

Leave it to Brad the Dope to win the prize!

YAY!

Oh for fcuk's sake.

Is your Crown of Thorns complete now Henry?
I'm so happy for you.  

Little Green Nut Balls

Henry Cate wrote:

Of course, I believe that ANY parties in disagreement can submit to binding arbitration, but this recognition of sharia law in Britain does not smell like that to me.  It smells of Britons caving to Muslims because they are AFRAID of Muslims.

So I presume, by that logic, that the UK government allows those Shin Beth courts to operate because it is afraid of Jews???



Last edited by Marsilius on Mon 6 Oct, 2008 8:08 am; edited 1 time in total

Marsilius wrote:

Henry Cate wrote:

Of course, I believe that ANY parties in disagreement can submit to binding arbitration, but this recognition of sharia law in Britain does not smell like that to me.  It smells of Britons caving to Muslims because they are AFRAID of Muslims.

So I presume, by thatr logic, that the UK government allows those Shin Beth courts to operate because it is afraid of Jews???

And don't forget the courts of the various christian sects, C of E, RC, etc.

this link eventully leads to the Times..another once great newspaper now owned by the Sun King Rupert Murdoch. The report is completely skewered and gives the impression that Sharia Law will operate in the UK.

This is not true..read the report and this is what stands out : 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 simply an extension of tribunals which have operated in the UK for decades..it's a way in which disputes are settled without actually going to court and tying up the court's time and avoiding the extra costs involved. I have been to such a tribunal. Both parties must agree to accept the outcome beforehand and if not, they can go to court.

It's just a simple case of trying to avoid the trouble of appearing in court..which everyone still has the right to do..and settling a dispute in a less formal way.

This report is racist as it implies something else. that is the defintion of racism..to somehow imply that one race is getting an advantage over another ( when the opposite is true) or a report that concentrates on a particular race.

This is not SHARIA LAW strictly speaking..it is one aspect of Sharia Law that gives both parties the opportunity to settle a dispute without formal court proceedings. The similarities between Muslim law and the British law (as law is based upon in the US & UK and the former UK colonies like Canada and Australia) are similar in some aspects and this is one of them .

It's like saying because the sun arises in the Middle East therefore the sun is Muslim.