Sharia Law
nobod...@gmail.com
Those folk who want Sharia law should go and live where it is pactised
and see if that suits their needs .
Apparently a statement has been issued on behalf of the P.M. saying
that " British laws should be based on British values"
nobod...@gmail.com
Ed
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm
>
> Those folk who want Sharia law should go and live where it is pactised
> and see if that suits their needs .
Bradford, Birmingham and Leicester you mean?
Jethro
As usually a whoosh of flames obscures the issue .....
Under UK law, it's quite common for civil disputes peculiar to
sections of the community to be handled in the first instance by a non-
statutory body, making it effectively "self regulating". Think of the
BMA, or (more appropriately) the Law Society. A contactual condition
of joining such a body is that you abide by it's rules.
If a certain grouping of UK citizens wish to sign up to a *civil*
sharia court system, then best of luck, as long as both participants
are "members" then AFAIAC they can knock themselves out.
If there were any talk that a Sharia court would have judgement where
one party were NOT a member, then I'd be against it.
Criminal law should remain the remit of the UK parliament, and court
system.
Palindrome
> On 7 Feb, 16:31, nobodyh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm
>>
>> Those folk who want Sharia law should go and live where it is pactised
>> and see if that suits their needs .
>>
>> Apparently a statement has been issued on behalf of the P.M. saying
>> that " British laws should be based on British values"
>
> As usually a whoosh of flames obscures the issue .....
>
> Under UK law, it's quite common for civil disputes peculiar to
> sections of the community to be handled in the first instance by a non-
> statutory body, making it effectively "self regulating". Think of the
> BMA, or (more appropriately) the Law Society. A contactual condition
> of joining such a body is that you abide by it's rules.
>
> If a certain grouping of UK citizens wish to sign up to a *civil*
> sharia court system, then best of luck, as long as both participants
> are "members" then AFAIAC they can knock themselves out.
Unfortunately the one being knocked out is usually female and has not
willingy "signed up".
>
> If there were any talk that a Sharia court would have judgement where
> one party were NOT a member, then I'd be against it.
What if one party had no choice but to be a member?
Sharia Law has no place in any civilsed society - until it treats men
and women equally. Which isn't going to happen in a society where men
and women aren't considered equal.
--
Sue
mustapha...@aol.com
Remind me again what country Christianty originated from.
Gaz
<mustapha...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:861609d8-2330-4508...@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
>Remind me again what country Christianty originated from.
We all originated from the same ancestor as Apes, that doesnt excuse me
throwing shit at you.
Gaz
JTF
Oh, it's all okay then.
Robin T Cox
> Sharia Law has no place in any civilsed society - until it treats men
> and women equally. Which isn't going to happen in a society where men
> and women aren't considered equal.
Do you claim that men and women are treated equally in our society
already?
Robin T Cox
I agree.
allan tracy
> Those folk who want Sharia law should go and live where it is pactised
> and see if that suits their needs .
>
Another example of a liberal lefty getting all in a twist hand
wringing on how to compromise the un-compromisable all in the name of
politically correct multi-culturalism.
The result is nothing better than appeasement of the worst sort.
It really is issues like this that draw out the fundamental hypocrisy
of PC.
Sharia law is incompatible with UK and EU law even before you begin to
consider human rights laws - end of story.
Darrell in Wisconsin
"Palindrome" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:aQGqj.84440$9w2....@fe12.news.easynews.com...
I only half agree.
Sharia Law has no place in civilized society, EVEN IF it treats men and
women equally.
Do you want to see both men and women raped or stoned to death with the
consent of their families?
Mike Ross
>Jethro wrote:
>> If a certain grouping of UK citizens wish to sign up to a *civil*
>> sharia court system, then best of luck, as long as both participants
>> are "members" then AFAIAC they can knock themselves out.
>>
>> If there were any talk that a Sharia court would have judgement where
>> one party were NOT a member, then I'd be against it.
>>
>> Criminal law should remain the remit of the UK parliament, and court
>> system.
>Oh, it's all okay then.
I agree, it's okay. It's exactly the same as the Jewish Beth Din courts which
have been operating in the UK for a very long time, as the BBC pointed out - or
indeed the same as any other system where all sides agree to submit to binding
arbitration, it's well-recognised and tested provision of British law to do
this.
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Gaz
"Robin T Cox" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:VqHqj.2199$j95....@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
Largely Yes, in some situations especially involving family breakdown, women
get a better deal. But in terms of rights, freedoms, pay etc they are equal.
Gaz
Robin T Cox
Not in pay, I think. And 'largely' covers a multitude of well-known sins.
Palindrome
note, however little, of my viewpoint...
--
Sue
allan tracy
> If there were any talk that a Sharia court would have judgement where
> one party were NOT a member, then I'd be against it.
>
I think this is what our illustrious bishop meant - it would be
compulsory for Muslims.
Currently, Sharia law is practised (mainly in matters of divorce)
amongst some Muslim communities however, of course, this never
supersedes UK law so in effect is voluntary amongst the faithful
(though social and family pressure often amounts to far more than
that).
I've have never ever committed myself either way on the debate of
political impartiality, or otherwise, of the BBC tending to take the
view that as long as all sides are equally offended then that's as
good as it gets.
However, BBC News 24 today was truly appalling on this when their
religious correspondent was allowed to state, in defence of the
bishop, that the practice of Sharia law has worked pretty well in
Nigeria, in respect of excluding Christians from its remit.
Of course, sharia law sentences adulterous (used in the loosest of
ways) women to stoning in Nigeria - but let's not go there.
He should have been shot for that - under any law.
Mrcheerful
But only because of your non sexual anonymity. You may be an equally
important man.
Mrcheerful
TD
"Mike Ross" <mi...@corestore.org> wrote in message
news:vvgmq3he771qfsbiq...@4ax.com...
IF the choice is a genuinely free one, and in some communities it sadly
isn't.
Palindrome
penalty - irrespective of the method of choice - or go in for sanctioned
sexual assault, in any non-therapeutic form. So, by definition, they
couldn't happen in a civilised society, no matter what legal system was
in place..
--
Sue
middl...@googlemail.com
<jeth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 7 Feb, 16:31, nobodyh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm
>>
>> Those folk who want Sharia law should go and live where it is pactised
>> and see if that suits their needs .
>>
>> Apparently a statement has been issued on behalf of the P.M. saying
>> that " British laws should be based on British values"
>
>As usually a whoosh of flames obscures the issue .....
>
>Under UK law, it's quite common for civil disputes peculiar to
>sections of the community to be handled in the first instance by a non-
>statutory body, making it effectively "self regulating". Think of the
>BMA, or (more appropriately) the Law Society. A contactual condition
>of joining such a body is that you abide by it's rules.
>
>If a certain grouping of UK citizens wish to sign up to a *civil*
>sharia court system, then best of luck, as long as both participants
>are "members" then AFAIAC they can knock themselves out.
That's all well and good when that subset of society shares the basic
values of society as a whole, but that often isn't the case when it
comes to the proponents of "Sharia Law". What if all parties agreed
that a corporal punishment was an appropriate resolution to a
particular dispute? Would you allow it to go ahead, even if the
person about to be punished had agreed to abide by Sharia Law? I
presume not, in which case you're already imposing restrictions on
their "law", which will lead to accusations of unfairness, racism,
anti-Islamic prejudice and so on. They don't want to practice Sharia
law within the restrictions of your western sensibilities. They want
to practice it fully, as they believe is their right. That is, in the
opinion of most British people, both unacceptable and incompatible
with the law of the land.
allan tracy
> > Apparently a statement has been issued on behalf of the P.M. saying
> > that " British laws should be based on British values"
>
> Remind me again what country Christianty originated from.
>
Where those values originate from is of little consequence.
Our values are fundamentally under pinned by the concept of freedom to
live the way of life of our choosing, freedom of expression, freedom
of faith and indeed freedom to have no faith.
This country fought two World wars in defence of those freedoms which
are therefore non negotiable to any alien culture that has been
permitted to settle here.
That this has not been communicated correctly (thanks mainly to
muddled and woolly thinking by the liberal left) is a failing that
hopefully we are now correcting.
However, the fact remains that Sharia law is fundamentally
incompatible with the UK law and EU law in respect of such things as
apostates and sexual equality and unless you sort those things out,
just for starters, you will receive little respect or hearing in a
modern Western society.
It also isn't helped that Sharia law is deliberately used by Muslims
as a convenient cover for practices such as the veil that have little
to do with Islam and everything to do with tribal culture and
political posturing.
The price paid for freedom by this nation has been a very high one so
please do not expect it would ever be given up cheaply and certainly
not as cheaply our poxy arch-bishop offers it up.
Palindrome
Mind you, your first line gave me pause for thought too. Presumably "non
sexual anonymity" is the opposite to "sexual anonymity"? So, by not
being sexualy anonymous, I am actually being sexually
explicit...Interesting logic.. ;)
--
Sue
Dave Farrance
>and see if that suits their needs .
>
>Apparently a statement has been issued on behalf of the P.M. saying
>that " British laws should be based on British values"
Full text of Dr. Williams' lecture (and it's long) here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/07_02_08_islam.pdf
Ho hum. After ploughing through that, I appreciate that Dr. Williams is
a humanitarian and I can sort of understand how as a religious man he can
reach such conclusions. But it's seriously off-beam from any truly
rational standard.
And if the leader of our state religion is saying this, then it really is
time for the separation of church and state. In the Western world, that
*is* the standard. There's only England, Denmark, Iceland and Norway
that have a state religion in the West.
--
Dave Farrance
michael adams
"allan tracy" <thunderb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a4e4977b-da56-406c...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > Apparently a statement has been issued on behalf of the P.M. saying
> > > that " British laws should be based on British values"
> >
> > Remind me again what country Christianty originated from.
> >
>
> Where those values originate from is of little consequence.
>
> Our values are fundamentally under pinned by the concept of freedom to
> live the way of life of our choosing, freedom of expression, freedom
> of faith and indeed freedom to have no faith.
>
> This country fought two World wars in defence of those freedoms which
> are therefore non negotiable to any alien culture that has been
> permitted to settle here.
Er no. This country fought two world wars primarily so as to hold on
to, and impose British values on the indigenous inhabitants of
the British Empire, whether they happened to like it or not.
And it looks like the experiment failed.
Now it's payback time.
michael adams
peterwn
In he case of the Birmingham metropolis, there are two Crown Courts -
at Birmingham and Dudley. The Dudley one has appeared to be more
'racist' in its outlook than the Birmingham one (according to some
surveys done several years ago). Perhaps the metropolis could be
divided into two with Birmingham using Common Law and Dudley using
Sharia Law, or vice versa.
tvaer...@aol.com
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm
Allowing Muslims to live under Sharia law is an excellent idea. And
Rastafarians should be allowed to live under Rasta law. Now that idea
I really like. I'd avoid places where Sharia was practiced like the
plague, but the chance of a bit of Rasta ganja makes me feel all warm
and multicultural.
Svenne
mustapha...@aol.com
Ah, you are talking of the USA?
allan tracy
> Er no. This country fought two world wars primarily so as to hold on
> to, and impose British values on the indigenous inhabitants of
> the British Empire, whether they happened to like it or not.
>
It was before my time but I doubt you would find many that fought in
WW2 that would agree with you so that makes you wrong.
Remember, many from all corners of the British Empire voluntarily
fought in WW2.
>
> And it looks like the experiment failed.
>
The decline of the British Empire has been one of the most peaceful in
history and all achieved with many former colonies remaining active
and loyal members of the Commonwealth.
>
> Now it's payback time.
>
Another wet dream from a frustrated lefty.
Haven't you got over the fall of the Berlin wall yet - it really is
time to move on?
I guess you get like that after so many years of being proven to be
wrong.
Robin T Cox
And allowing Jews to live under Beth Din courts would also be a good
idea, wouldn't it? After all, we've allowed them for many years.
Alan
Gaz
Erm, yes in pay, and have been so for many years. Care to show me evidence
in general of women recieving less pay for the same jobs??
Gaz
Alang
> On 7 Feb, 18:16, Palindrome <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> > Darrell in Wisconsin wrote:
> > > "Palindrome" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> > > news:aQGqj.84440$9w2....@fe12.news.easynews.com...
> > >> Jethro wrote:
> > >>> On 7 Feb, 16:31, nobodyh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm
> >
> > >>>> Those folk who want Sharia law should go and live where it
> > is pactised >>>> and see if that suits their needs .
> >
> > >>>> Apparently a statement has been issued on behalf of the
> > P.M. saying >>>> that " British laws should be based on British
> > values" >>> As usually a whoosh of flames obscures the issue .....
> >
> > >>> Under UK law, it's quite common for civil disputes peculiar to
> > >>> sections of the community to be handled in the first instance
> > by a non- >>> statutory body, making it effectively "self
> > regulating". Think of the >>> BMA, or (more appropriately) the
> > Law Society. A contactual condition >>> of joining such a body is
> > that you abide by it's rules.
> >
> > >>> If a certain grouping of UK citizens wish to sign up to a
> > civil >>> sharia court system, then best of luck, as long as both
> > participants >>> are "members" then AFAIAC they can knock
> > themselves out. >> Unfortunately the one being knocked out is
> > usually female and has not >> willingy "signed up".
> >
> > >>> If there were any talk that a Sharia court would have
> > judgement where >>> one party were NOT a member, then I'd be
> > against it. >> What if one party had no choice but to be a
> > member?
> >
> > >> Sharia Law has no place in any civilsed society - until it
> > treats men and >> women equally. Which isn't going to happen in a
> > society where men and >> women aren't considered equal.
> >
> > > I only half agree.
> >
> > > Sharia Law has no place in civilized society, EVEN IF it
> > > treats men and women equally.
> >
> > > Do you want to see both men and women raped or stoned to death
> > > with the consent of their families?
> >
> > ISTM that, if it were a civilised society, it wouldn't have a
> > death penalty - irrespective of the method of choice -
>
> Ah, you are talking of the USA?
There are more countries than USofA that have the death penalty and
consider themselves civilised.Japan for one. And in the USofA the
individual states decide for themselves which means some are quite
civilised while others have people you would not invite to dinner.
Although Tony Blair invited George Bush to a fish supper. Sez a lot
about Blair
JTF
Those courts should be dismantled too.
theodo...@googlemail.com
Exactly. It's like the problem with faith schools. Easy, close them as
well. Problem solved and no one can claim they're being treated
differently than anyone else.
michael adams
> >
> > Er no. This country fought two world wars primarily so as to hold on
> > to, and impose British values on the indigenous inhabitants of
> > the British Empire, whether they happened to like it or not.
> >
>
> It was before my time but I doubt you would find many that fought in
> WW2 that would agree with you so that makes you wrong.
>
> Remember, many from all corners of the British Empire voluntarily
> fought in WW2.
What people from all these "alien cultures", you mean ?
So these "alien cultures" are ok as cannon fodder, but not to live next door
to eh ?
>
> >
> > And it looks like the experiment failed.
> >
>
> The decline of the British Empire has been one of the most peaceful in
> history and all achieved with many former colonies remaining active
> and loyal members of the Commonwealth.
But only so long as they stay in their own part of the Commonwealth
eh Tracy ?
>
> >
> > Now it's payback time.
> >
>
> Another wet dream from a frustrated lefty.
>
> Haven't you got over the fall of the Berlin wall yet - it really is
> time to move on?
>
> I guess you get like that after so many years of being proven to be
> wrong.
You're the one objecting to the customs of all this cheap labour imported
by your capitalist masters Tracy, not me.
It was capitalist imperialists who colonised all these places and robbed
them of their resources, and imported all this cheap labour.
Its' a bit late to start crying your eyes out now.
Although I very much doubt if the spivs are that bothered, seeing as
very few of them ever go near Bradford except to visit their factories.
Maybe you could ask some, when you wash their cars for them over
the weekend.
michael adams
...
Gaz
"Alang" <inv...@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wRIqj.5311$6V5....@fe093.usenetserver.com...
Its not the punishment that determines civilised vs uncivilised, but the
access to justice, equality under the law with a system of rights and
freedoms.
Gaz
Gaz
"JTF" <notanema...@fake.net> wrote in message
news:13qmmlr...@corp.supernews.com...
They arent really courts though, but free associations whose members agree
to bind themselves by their decisions. Lets not assist this government in
its desire to criminalise many aspects of freedom of association.
Gaz
Mrcheerful
Gaz wrote:
> "Robin T Cox" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> news:ZCHqj.2204$j95...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:52:39 +0000, Gaz wrote:
>>
>>> "Robin T Cox" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
>>> news:VqHqj.2199$j95....@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>>>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:01:58 +0000, Palindrome wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sharia Law has no place in any civilsed society - until it treats
>>>>> men and women equally. Which isn't going to happen in a society
>>>>> where men and women aren't considered equal.
>>>>
>>>> Do you claim that men and women are treated equally in our society
>>>> already?
>>>
>>>
>>> Largely Yes, in some situations especially involving family
>>> breakdown, women get a better deal. But in terms of rights,
>>> freedoms, pay etc they are equal.
>>>
>>> Gaz
>>
>> Not in pay, I think. And 'largely' covers a multitude of well-known
>> sins.
>
> Erm, yes in pay, and have been so for many years. Care to show me
> evidence in general of women recieving less pay for the same jobs??
>
> Gaz
my local council refused to pay back dated equal pay claims, they said they
couldn't afford it and offered two years worth instead of six.
Mrcheerful
Equally important to any men reading the debate ;)
yes, I should have said sexual anonymity, the non was conflicting. I
apologise for the confusion.
Mrcheerful
Cynic
>> Do you claim that men and women are treated equally in our society
>> already?
>At least you think it worth asking me the question and might take some
>note, however little, of my viewpoint...
Do you believe that men and women *should* be treated equally within a
society?
Do you believe that men and women should have the same roles within a
family?
Do you believe that apart from the obvious biological differences, men
and women are basically interchangeable?
I admit that I do not treat men and women equally in quite a number of
different ways.
--
Cynic
Gaz
"Mrcheerful" <nbk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o4Jqj.3369$XI....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
Its like putting a little tidler on the end of a hook and waiting.
Nobody at your local council has been paid less for the same job because
they are female. The equal pay claim is not about being paid the same for
the same jobs, but the perverse idea that a dinnerlady and a binman should
earn the same amount of money, irrelevant of the mechanism of supply and
demand.
Next.
Gaz
allan tracy
> have been operating in the UK for a very long time, as the BBC pointed out - or
> indeed the same as any other system where all sides agree to submit to binding
> arbitration, it's well-recognised and tested provision of British law to do
> this.
>
Except no such agreements can ever supersede the law of the land.
You may voluntarily enter into a contract of employment that says you
get paid in liquorish allsorts on Tuesdays but it would still be
illegal.
The archbishop is proposing Sharia law on the Nigerian model where if
you're a Muslim then Sharia is the law with no opt-out.
allan tracy
> Apparently a statement has been issued on behalf of the P.M. saying
> that " British laws should be based on British values"
..... failing that Scottish ones.
mentalguy2004
"Gaz" <gaz...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6115e0F...@mid.individual.net...
Dinnerperson and binperson, surely?
:)
Richard Brooks
I thought it was yet another 'cutting edge' cop show. "You two! My
office, NOW!"
Gaz
"mentalguy2004" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:XpJqj.596$875...@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
Well, thats kind of the problem, dinner ladies are predominantly women, and
binmen are predominantly men, supposedly both positions are on the same
paygrade. But because of the nature of being a binman, it being quite a
physically demanding job, somewhat dangerous, with low social status,
various schemes and pay topups exist, largely agreed through union activity.
Productivity targets, sickness targets, overtime etc meant that the average
wage pro-rata of binmen was significantly higher then dinnerladies.
This is, somehow, sexual discrimination.
Gaz
Gaz
And, if you are in a predominantly muslim area, ie the barbaric and
primative northern wastelands of Nigeria, non muslims are also subject to
it.
Gaz
Robin T Cox
I rest my case.
Alang
A country that uses the death penalty is not a civilised country
--
Robin T Cox
It is also the punishment.
As the US recognised until fairly recently, with its ban on 'cruel and
unusual punishment'. And as shown by the number of states who are now
refusing to use capital punishment because the process of lethal
injection cannot be guaranteed to be painless.
If you watched Michael Portillo's recent programme, you will remember the
US bloke (speaking for the redneck minority, no doubt) who refused to
countenance a humane method of execution in any case.
In the view of the European Convention on Human Rights, respect for human
dignity is a value in which we believe, and there are certain practices
that are beyond the civilised pale.
Gaz
No you havent. Women and Men are not paid different rates for the same job,
that would be against the law.
Gaz
Gaz
> Gaz wrote:
>
>>
>> Its not the punishment that determines civilised vs uncivilised,
>> but the access to justice, equality under the law with a system of
>> rights and freedoms.
>>
> A country that uses the death penalty is not a civilised country
Rubbish.
Gaz
Sam Nelson
Name one. And not the USA, which fails to offer healthcare to almost
half of its population.
--
SAm.
Robin T Cox
Of course, but there are ways of getting round the law, and it happens
all the time.
allan tracy
> You're the one objecting to the customs of all this cheap labour imported
> by your capitalist masters Tracy, not me.
>
>
Darwin states we are all a product of our environment in which case I
look forward to young second and third generations of Muslim
immigrants getting high on drugs, binge drinking, engaging in
tribalistic disputes at football matches on non sectarian lines,
spreading sexually transmitted disease and females going out half
naked and entering into loose relationships with the consequence of
full adherence to the maxim of 4x4.
It's the immigrants that have far more to lose in our localised clash
of the great civilisations (why else would they be calling for Sharia
other than in desperation).
Personally, I feel heartily sorry for them coming here because many
immigrant communities have something that was lost here years ago
called 'family values' and 'community' and they're priceless.
I can fully understand why they contemplate certain aspect of the
British way of life with complete horror because so do plenty of the
indigenous British.
Indeed, if Sharia law was less identifiable with an alien religion and
alien races (please understand that I do not use the term alien as a
term of abuse in this context which is how you seem to interpret it)
then more than a few of the silent majority of British born would be
signing up for it en mass.
Gaz
I agree that on some occasions it might happen in certain situations,
especially in entertainment and sports, but it is not a general rule, and
for the overwhelming majority of the population for the overwhelming time,
men and women are paid the same for the same job.
Gaz
Gaz
"Sam Nelson" <s...@ssrl.org.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.22157ef4c...@news.individual.net...
dont believe the propoganda. The USA spends a higher percentage of its gdp
on healthcare then we do.
Gaz
michael adams
"allan tracy" <thunderb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0ee7924b-47c0-4441...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> you're a Muslim then Sharia is the law with no opt-out.
Hows about the Norman model, where if the Archbishop of Canterbury gets
a bit lippy you have him whacked ?
Ring any bells, eh Tracy ?
michael adams
...
Halmyre
says...
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:29:26 +0000, nobod...@gmail.com scribed:
>
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm
> >
> > Those folk who want Sharia law should go and live where it is pactised
> > and see if that suits their needs .
> >
> > Apparently a statement has been issued on behalf of the P.M. saying
> > that " British laws should be based on British values"
>
>
Who really gives a flying toss what's on a coin?
--
Halmyre
I'll just go and get my baton...it's in Chicago.
Sofa - Spud
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm
>
> Those folk who want Sharia law should go and live where it is pactised
> and see if that suits their needs .
>
> Apparently a statement has been issued on behalf of the P.M. saying
> that " British laws should be based on British values"
I was wondering the other day when the next "Islam in the news" moment
would be and here it is.
Robin T Cox
Wouldn't it be nice if that were true?
They may be paid the same for the same job, but you know as well as I do
that there is little chance of most women ever being able to get the same
job as men.
The glass ceiling, among other things, takes care of that.
Robin T Cox
But the fact is that those statistics don't represent the distribution of
wealth such that people can afford health care.
And in the US a vast number can't afford it.
Lister
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm
>
>Those folk who want Sharia law should go and live where it is pactised
>and see if that suits their needs .
>
There's something about Sharia :)
Periander
news:a6a186a7-c21f-43f7...@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>> Apparently a statement has been issued on behalf of the P.M. saying
>> that " British laws should be based on British values"
>
> As usually a whoosh of flames obscures the issue .....
>
> Under UK law, it's quite common for civil disputes peculiar to
> sections of the community to be handled in the first instance by a
> non- statutory body, making it effectively "self regulating". Think of
> the BMA, or (more appropriately) the Law Society. A contactual
> condition of joining such a body is that you abide by it's rules.
Quite right and in the main I agree with you. Also we just have to put
in to context what the archbishop said, after all he was only talking
about having matrimonial disputes and financial dealings dealt with
informally under Sharia law.
Lets just look at marriage shall we?
Stoning any woman who has the audacity to stand up to her husband under
the excuse of adultery. Ritual murder to satisfy "honour"
Children sold of in to forced marriages.
And that’s just for starters. To a certain extent we can’t really blame
the muslims, in the main they come from inbred backward third world
tribes and don’t know any better.
Rowan Williams though doesn't benefit from that excuse, I am therefore
bound to draw the conclusion that the man’s a fucking cunt.
--
Regards or otherwise,
Periander
judith
He could of course have named the USA and backed up the assertion.
judith
Yes - because healthcare is so expensive in the states - to those who
can afford it. There are nearly 50 million Americans without health
insurance.
Although America leads the world in spending on health care, it is the
only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all
citizens have coverage." Insuring America's Health: Principles and
Recommendations, Institute of Medicine, January 2004.
judith
<thunderb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
>The archbishop is proposing Sharia law on the Nigerian model where if
>you're a Muslim then Sharia is the law with no opt-out.
You do talk shite - or can you back this up?
allan tracy
> Yes - because healthcare is so expensive in the states - to those who
> can afford it. There are nearly 50 million Americans without health
> insurance.
>
> Although America leads the world in spending on health care, it is the
> only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all
> citizens have coverage.
>
So what happens when one of those 50 million are run over by a car are
they left in the road to die?
Robin T Cox
>> Apparently a statement has been issued on behalf of the P.M. saying
>> that " British laws should be based on British values"
>
>
> ..... failing that Scottish ones.
But of course the Scots have their own legal system anyway, like sharia
law.
Steve Walker
> Jethro wrote:
>> As usually a whoosh of flames obscures the issue .....
>>
>> Under UK law, it's quite common for civil disputes peculiar to
>> sections of the community to be handled in the first instance by a
>> non- statutory body, making it effectively "self regulating". Think
>> of the BMA, or (more appropriately) the Law Society. A contactual
>> condition of joining such a body is that you abide by it's rules.
>>
>> If a certain grouping of UK citizens wish to sign up to a *civil*
>> sharia court system, then best of luck, as long as both participants
>> are "members" then AFAIAC they can knock themselves out.
>
> Unfortunately the one being knocked out is usually female and has not
> willingy "signed up".
I agree - people will inevitably be pressured to agree to arbitration by the
Iman, who will inevitably uphold the religious/cultural status quo. It's
how it's always been in any Abrahamic religion, what's different now?
One nation, one law.
Steve Walker
> dont believe the propoganda. The USA spends a higher percentage of
> its gdp on healthcare then we do.
The rich people spending fortunes on every little want, whilst the poor
people just disappear to the margins.
Gaz
Glass ceiling, my arse, however that is a different matter. Men and Women
are paid the same for the same job. There is no paygap, or discrimination in
pay. (get the fullstop at the end?)
Gaz
Steve Walker
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:28:15 +0000, JTF <notanema...@fake.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Jethro wrote:
>
>>> If a certain grouping of UK citizens wish to sign up to a *civil*
>>> sharia court system, then best of luck, as long as both participants
>>> are "members" then AFAIAC they can knock themselves out.
>>>
>>> where one party were NOT a member, then I'd be against it.
>>>
>>> system.
>
>> Oh, it's all okay then.
>
> I agree, it's okay. It's exactly the same as the Jewish Beth Din
> courts which have been operating in the UK for a very long time, as
> the BBC pointed out - or indeed the same as any other system where
> all sides agree to submit to binding arbitration, it's
> well-recognised and tested provision of British law to do this.
From that BBC item :
"Divorce, in Jewish law, takes place when a document called a Get, written
out by a scribe in Aramaic and ancient Hebrew, is handed by the husband to
the wife. It is not legal the other way round...... "
So how is it OK to have a quasi-official court system where 50% of the users
are denied the right to present basic everyday cases?
Periander
news:611hhoF...@mid.individual.net:
And a stone each ... gravel 5 pence.
--
Regards,
Periander
Steve Walker
>> This country fought two World wars in defence of those freedoms which
>> are therefore non negotiable to any alien culture that has been
>> permitted to settle here.
>
> Er no. This country fought two world wars primarily so as to hold on
> to, and impose British values on the indigenous inhabitants of
> the British Empire, whether they happened to like it or not.
WW1 arguably, but in WW2 you're perhaps forgetting those panzers racing
towards the Channel?
michael adams
"Gaz" <gaz...@msn.com> wrote in message news:6119t8F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> dont believe the propoganda. The USA spends a higher percentage of its gdp
> on healthcare then we do.
>
> Gaz
It also has lower life expectancy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
Based on the CIA World Factbook.
So try explaining that one away, brains.
michael adams
...
>
>
Steve Walker
> Jethro <jeth...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:a6a186a7-c21f-43f7...@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> Apparently a statement has been issued on behalf of the P.M. saying
>>> that " British laws should be based on British values"
>>
>> As usually a whoosh of flames obscures the issue .....
>>
>> Under UK law, it's quite common for civil disputes peculiar to
>> sections of the community to be handled in the first instance by a
>> non- statutory body, making it effectively "self regulating". Think
>> of the BMA, or (more appropriately) the Law Society. A contactual
>> condition of joining such a body is that you abide by it's rules.
>
> Quite right and in the main I agree with you. Also we just have to put
> in to context what the archbishop said, after all he was only talking
> about having matrimonial disputes and financial dealings dealt with
> informally under Sharia law.
>
> Lets just look at marriage shall we?
>
> Stoning any woman who has the audacity to stand up to her husband
> under the excuse of adultery. Ritual murder to satisfy "honour"
> Children sold of in to forced marriages.
I think you're quite right - it would be intolerable for a victimised woman
or child to be subjected to the prevailing model of 'justice' in such an
environment.
Richard Miller
nobod...@gmail.com writes
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm
>
>Those folk who want Sharia law should go and live where it is pactised
>and see if that suits their needs .
The whole point of the Archbishop's comment is that those folk who want
Sharia law already know exactly what it says and do believe it suits
their needs.
I think this was a somewhat misguided statement, but on one thing Dr
Williams was absolutely right. Those people who read "Sharia law" and
immediately think of chopping off hands and stoning adulterers have
completely missed the point of both Sharia law and his comments.
>
>Apparently a statement has been issued on behalf of the P.M. saying
>that " British laws should be based on British values"
But whenever two parties are in dispute, they are entitled to agree to
have it resolved according to British law, Sharia law, Jewish law or any
other system they choose, so long as it does not involve committing a
criminal offence. They could even choose to resolve their dispute by
having a race or a game of poker if they so wished. It would be equally
valid. Formalising some of the more popular forms of dispute resolution
seems unobjectionable.
--
Richard Miller
Mike Swift
<4rub...@britwar.co.uk> writes
>> One nation, one law.
>
>And a stone each ... gravel 5 pence.
Oh Jehovah
Mike
--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange
Gaz
You must remember that public health care is organised on a state by state
basis, with a minimal federal level of service.The two major federal
programmes are Medicare and medicaid, the former covers all citizens over 65
for hospital based care, and subsidises non hospital services, the latter
covers people on low incomes (very). The problem kicks in for the working
poor, earning to much for help, but in a job that doesnt provide insurance.
42 million people are eligible for Medicare, and about 50 million people are
covered by Medicaid. These are the 'uninsured' that people like Moor refer
to.
The american system however is deeply rotten, and corrupt to the core. But
lets not pretend it doesnt provide good outcomes. Those at the very very
bottom of the ladder come out of the system very badly, imagine a whole
group of people with the health of Glaswegians. If you deduct those (who are
often 'undocumented', or make extremely poor lifestyle choices, then you
find that for most people, the US service delivers a very high quality of
care.
We can certainly learn from them, and them from us. Remember, as i said, it
differs from State to State, but the way the insurance system works with
HMOs etc, sounds like little more then legalised corruption.
Gaz
Gaz
No as they are most certainly covered by medicare or medicaid, but aside
from that, hospitals with ER facilities are legally not allowed to prevent
admission from people without medical insurance.
Gaz
Gaz
I was talking about public spending.......... Health is organised on a state
by state basis, some good some bad, some awful and some excellent.
Gaz
Edward Cowling London UK
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm
>
>Those folk who want Sharia law should go and live where it is pactised
>and see if that suits their needs .
>
>that " British laws should be based on British values"
I don't know. If I could have said "I divorce thee" three times to get
rid of my ex it would have saved me half the house and a whole heap of
solicitors fees :-)
--
Edward Cowling "Must go - I Zigged When I Should Have Zagged !"
michael adams
"Steve Walker" <spam...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:611hvjF...@mid.individual.net...
Why do you think the British Govt never reached an accomodation with
Hitler ?
Do you really think the British Govt was more worried about the fate
of Poland, than she was about the loss of Middle East Oil, Malay Tin
and Rubber under threat from the Japanese, the return of the former
German East Africa and South West Africa, to say nothing of the loss
of the whole of the Indian subcontinent to either Indian nationalists
or the Japanese.
Hitler never had any serious intention of invading England. But as the price
of peace he expected territorial concessions from Britain in terms of access
to the same cheap raw materials as Britain enjoyed, as compensation for Germany's
humilation at the end of WW1. The very thing which Churchill would
never agree to under any circumstances.
michael adams
...
>
>
Gaz
We seem to be looking at very narrow differnces, 87 vs 87.9 etc. All of
which could be within the margin of error, and can be subject to certain
demographics. For example, the average life expectancy for blacks in America
is 69 years (this gap has narrowed over the last twenty years), the lower
life expectancy is attributed to things such as higher homicide rates, and
high levels of HIV, and heart disease, the latter especially amongs black
women
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297.11.1224v1
Average life expectancy in the US by race and gender:
a.. Black male: 69.8 years
a.. White male: 75.7 years
a.. Black female: 76.5 years
a.. White female: 80.8 years
In the UK, its hard to get a breakdown of race
but all men on average 75 and all women on average 79 (that data is from
2004, i understand that the latest stats have creeped it up slightly)
So what do you think of that???
Gaz
>
> michael adams
>
> ...
habshi
In fact all Islamic clerics and Islamofacists the option of criminal
sharia law to start with , so if any of them steal , an Islamic doctor
can cut off his hand as per Quranic instructions.
Also floggings and stonings as per sharia . If they want it ,
and accept it , then why should we stand in the way ?
Within five years all Muslims will drop Islam and convert to a
more sensible religion and we will be spared as Islamic demographic
takeover.
If any fundies refuse Islamic criminal sharia , they will
stand exposed as hypocrites and their followers will melt away.
JTF
I read that a lot of hospitals are having to close as a result of having
to treat poor illegal immigrants, something which they can't afford to do.
JTF
It's pretty crucial to get racial breakdowns for these things. People
rarely consider these factors when they talk about things as diverse as
crime and average height in America.
Mike Ross
<sighs> that isn't the case. If you're an Orthodox Jew, that's how you do it
(AFAIK) - it's a religious belief, not the law of the land. You can have as many
'Gets' as you like, it's still a religious divorce - has no effect on the legal
position, because that's governed by the law of the land. They need a civil
divorce for legal reasons, and a Get for religious reasons.
None of which affects the principle I outlined - that British law recognises the
right of people to *freely enter* into any form of binding arbitration they
like, as a matter of contract law. And so long as the arbitration satisfies a
basic standard of 'fairness', British courts won't interfere and over-rule -
whether the arbitration was at a Beth Din court, a Sharia court, a Wiccan
circle, or ACAS.
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Mike Ross
>Mike Ross wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:28:15 +0000, JTF <notanema...@fake.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Jethro wrote:
>>
>>>> If a certain grouping of UK citizens wish to sign up to a *civil*
>>>> sharia court system, then best of luck, as long as both participants
>>>> are "members" then AFAIAC they can knock themselves out.
>>>>
>>>> If there were any talk that a Sharia court would have judgement where
>>>> one party were NOT a member, then I'd be against it.
>>>>
>>>> Criminal law should remain the remit of the UK parliament, and court
>>>> system.
>>
>>> Oh, it's all okay then.
>>
>> I agree, it's okay. It's exactly the same as the Jewish Beth Din courts which
>> have been operating in the UK for a very long time, as the BBC pointed out - or
>> indeed the same as any other system where all sides agree to submit to binding
>> arbitration, it's well-recognised and tested provision of British law to do
>> this.
>
>Those courts should be dismantled too.
Which courts exactly, and why? And how do you propose to do this dismantling??
You seemed to be in favour of this when you said it was okay.
JTF
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:23:40 +0000, JTF <notanema...@fake.net> wrote:
>
>> Mike Ross wrote:
>>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:28:15 +0000, JTF <notanema...@fake.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jethro wrote:
>>>>> If a certain grouping of UK citizens wish to sign up to a *civil*
>>>>> sharia court system, then best of luck, as long as both participants
>>>>> are "members" then AFAIAC they can knock themselves out.
>>>>>
>>>>> If there were any talk that a Sharia court would have judgement where
>>>>> one party were NOT a member, then I'd be against it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Criminal law should remain the remit of the UK parliament, and court
>>>>> system.
>>>> Oh, it's all okay then.
>>> I agree, it's okay. It's exactly the same as the Jewish Beth Din courts which
>>> have been operating in the UK for a very long time, as the BBC pointed out - or
>>> indeed the same as any other system where all sides agree to submit to binding
>>> arbitration, it's well-recognised and tested provision of British law to do
>>> this.
>> Those courts should be dismantled too.
>
> Which courts exactly, and why? And how do you propose to do this dismantling??
> You seemed to be in favour of this when you said it was okay.
>
> Mike
I was being sarcastic when I said it was OK. Personally, I think it's
madness that we have people living here that require their own court
system. England doesn't even deserve to be called a nation anymore.
Mike Ross
>Mike Ross wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:23:40 +0000, JTF <notanema...@fake.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Ross wrote:
>>>> I agree, it's okay. It's exactly the same as the Jewish Beth Din courts which
>>>> have been operating in the UK for a very long time, as the BBC pointed out - or
>>>> indeed the same as any other system where all sides agree to submit to binding
>>>> arbitration, it's well-recognised and tested provision of British law to do
>>>> this.
>>> Those courts should be dismantled too.
>>
>> Which courts exactly, and why? And how do you propose to do this dismantling??
>> You seemed to be in favour of this when you said it was okay.
>I was being sarcastic when I said it was OK. Personally, I think it's
>madness that we have people living here that require their own court
>system.
Who says they 'require' it? And more to the point, English law gives EVERYONE
the option of using their own chosen, mutally-agreed form of binding arbitration
in civil cases, as an alternative to a court of law - why are you opposed to
this? It's been the law for... I don't know exactly, but a hell of a long time,
I'm sure.
>England doesn't even deserve to be called a nation anymore.
Hah. It's old-established English law you're complaining about - see above.
John Rowland
>
> who is sharia law? a muslim pop star
A woman with a glove puppet called Lambchop.
Joe Lee
"Robin T Cox" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:ZCHqj.2204$j95...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:52:39 +0000, Gaz wrote:
>
>> "Robin T Cox" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
>> news:VqHqj.2199$j95....@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:01:58 +0000, Palindrome wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sharia Law has no place in any civilsed society - until it treats men
>>>> and women equally. Which isn't going to happen in a society where men
>>>> and women aren't considered equal.
>>>
>>> Do you claim that men and women are treated equally in our society
>>> already?
>>
>>
>> Largely Yes, in some situations especially involving family breakdown,
>> women get a better deal. But in terms of rights, freedoms, pay etc they
>> are equal.
>>
>> Gaz
>
> Not in pay, I think. And 'largely' covers a multitude of well-known sins.
I think "largely" is an accurate statement & far more preferable to a system
in which "seldomly" would be considered to be the norm.
--
Joe Lee
Sofa - Spud
> On Feb 8, 5:37 am, Ed <eabow...@onetel.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 4:31 pm, nobodyh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm
>>> Those folk who want Sharia law should go and live where it is pactised
>>> and see if that suits their needs .
>
>
> In he case of the Birmingham metropolis, there are two Crown Courts -
> at Birmingham and Dudley. The Dudley one has appeared to be more
> 'racist' in its outlook than the Birmingham one (according to some
> surveys done several years ago).
Cite?
Perhaps the metropolis could be
> divided into two with Birmingham using Common Law and Dudley using
> Sharia Law, or vice versa.
Svenne
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Apparently a statement has been issued on behalf of the P.M. saying
>>that " British laws should be based on British values"
>But whenever two parties are in dispute, they are entitled to agree to
>have it resolved according to British law, Sharia law, Jewish law or any
>other system they choose, so long as it does not involve committing a
>criminal offence. They could even choose to resolve their dispute by
>having a race or a game of poker if they so wished. It would be equally
>valid. Formalising some of the more popular forms of dispute resolution
>seems unobjectionable.
It is perfectly reasonable to accomodate Sharia law within the
existing framework of civil arbitration. In fact it would be
completely unnaceptable to make an exception by explicitly banning
Sharia.
But there are certainly going to be problems with the working practice
of Sharia arbitration courts.
It will prove impossible to protect the rights of vulnerable women
isolated within powerful Islamic communities. Many of these women are
already beaten, physically, theologically and culturally, into
submission by dominating husbands and they would be given a hard,
Koran sanction thrashing to force them to accept any Sharia ruling
their male masters want. Appealing or protesting would likely only
lead to a doubling of the number of bones in their body.
There are massive problems with Sharia and Muslim culture that will
make a seamless integration with British law and values difficult.
Svenne
NicHughes
>
> As usually a whoosh of flames obscures the issue .....
>
> Under UK law, it's quite common for civil disputes peculiar to
> sections of the community to be handled in the first instance by a non-
> statutory body, making it effectively "self regulating". Think of the
> BMA, or (more appropriately) the Law Society. A contactual condition
> of joining such a body is that you abide by it's rules.
>
> If a certain grouping of UK citizens wish to sign up to a *civil*
> sharia court system, then best of luck, as long as both participants
> are "members" then AFAIAC they can knock themselves out.
>
Sharia arbitration is just fine, I do not think anyone would argue
against it. As with any arbitration it is only as binding as the legal
agreement - under UK law - signed to submit yourself to it. If the
arbitration is fundamentally unjust it can be overturned by a civil
court. Sharia law would be entirely different as it would have force
of law over and above that agreement. The Ottomans tried having
multiple legal systems and it was a mess. Basically this is a stupid
divisive idea that should not have seen the light of day.
---
Nic