Sharia courts now sanctioned by UK

They appease radicals then wonder why said radicals are taking over. Unbelievable.

This should prove how glad we should be to live in America.

Yay! Makes you wish we could be as "evolved" as them, doesn't it? If Brown and the rest of Europe supports Obama, it's good enough reason for me to support McCain. We're alone in taking on radical Islam... and worse still, half of this country seems willing to follow Europe's lead on appeasement. Unreal.

Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.

Click to expand...

Sounds like everyone gets their own special 'court'. But don't let that stop you from singling out the Muslim ones as some sort of threat to democracy.

Albedo said:

Sounds like everyone gets their own special court. Why single out the Muslims as 'radicals'?

Click to expand...

Do those cases end up with a woman being stoned to death on the street? That might be where the "radical" thing comes in.

Takvah said:

Do those cases end up with a woman being stoned to death on the street? That might be where the "radical" thing comes in.

Click to expand...

I missed the stonings in the article...anyway, if you fear being sentenced to stoning at a voluntary arbitration hearing you can always decline.

Not that I think any religious court has a role in the law, of course, but I can't see why Muslim verdicts on noise pollution are any more objectionable than Jewish verdicts on noise pollution

Albedo said:

Not that I think any religious court has a role in the law, of course, but I can't see why Muslim verdicts on noise pollution are any more objectionable than Jewish verdicts on noise pollution

Click to expand...

I think it's all nonsense and typically weak... you're living in Britain, they should all be subject to the laws of the land and the courts of the land. Honor killings are a real issue in Britain and I really believe that this sends the wrong message. The door has been opened. Women can now be treated as second class citizens and little more than chattel within the borders of the UK... that's disturbing to say the least.

Albedo said:

Not that I think any religious court has a role in the law, of course, but I can't see why Muslim verdicts on noise pollution are any more objectionable than Jewish verdicts on noise pollution

Click to expand...

They aren't more objectionable, they're JUST as objectionable. Neither should be allowed

Takvah said:

Do those cases end up with a woman being stoned to death on the street? That might be where the "radical" thing comes in.

Click to expand...

stoning for adultery is the law under judaism. so i take it you have an objection to the jewish courts as well?

Bravo said:

that's the law under judaism. so i take it you have an objection to the jewish courts as well?

Click to expand...

And it was last implemented?

cethklein said:

They aren't more objectionable, they're JUST as objectionable. Neither should be allowed

Click to expand...

Exactly. Mark this day on your calendar.

should that matter? isnt takvah's argument that it's a slippery slope?

cethklein said:

They aren't more objectionable, they're JUST as objectionable. Neither should be allowed

Click to expand...

I agree. But one's been around for 100 years or more, so I can't see the UK coming to its senses over this.

Bravo said:

stoning for adultery is the law under judaism. so i take it you have an objection to the jewish courts as well?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. And if Jews in this country wanted their own system of law I would be completely against it. I don't care if it was civil or criminal.

cethklein said:

They aren't more objectionable, they're JUST as objectionable. Neither should be allowed

Click to expand...

Takvah said:

Exactly. Mark this day on your calendar.

Click to expand...

case closed then.

we're all in agreement.

But both the Jewish and Muslim arbitration courts have to follow British law, right? At least that's how I'm understanding it. And stoning someone to death is against the law there, as they have no death penalty.

Enlighten me if I'm wrong here, please.

Bravo said:

should that matter? isnt takvah's argument that it's a slippery slope?

Click to expand...

Yes it should. Since extremist Islam makes attempts to impose its views on outsiders while Judaism doesn't. Furthemore, similar things do actually happen under Sharia law in some countries, while they do not under Jewish law. So, I'd say it is a valid concern.

WendyNYC said:

But both the Jewish and Muslim arbitration courts have to follow British law, right? At least that's how I'm understanding it. And stoning someone to death is against the law there, as they have no death penalty.

Enlighten me if I'm wrong here, please.

Click to expand...

Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “I think it’s appalling. I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.”

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.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

The proverbial slippery slope is ALREADY evident.

Aren't court shows like Judge Judy and The People's Court the same way? Basically, people agree to have an arbiter outside the normal justice system, and are bound by contract to agree to the judgement.

If we have Judge Judy, why not Rabbi Schwartzman or Imam Hassan bin-Nasiyrah? I hate to say it, but it sounds like something that will help keep petty cases out of our already overburdened court system.

Takvah said:

Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “I think it’s appalling. I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.”

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.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

The proverbial slippery slope is ALREADY evident.

Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting that it's a good deal for women, or something that should be allowed at all. But you mentioned stonings and honor killings above, and I'm wondering if that is going to be allowed, in England, as a punishment.

Sarpedon said:

Aren't court shows like Judge Judy and The People's Court the same way? Basically, people agree to have an arbiter outside the normal justice system, and are bound by contract to agree to the judgement.

If we have Judge Judy, why not Rabbi Schwartzman or Imam Hassan bin-Nasiyrah? I hate to say it, but it sounds like something that will help keep petty cases out of our already overburdened court system.

Click to expand...

So domestic violence cases should be arbitrated (that's what JJ and the rest of the TV courts are) by faux courts?

Sarpedon said:

Aren't court shows like Judge Judy and The People's Court the same way? Basically, people agree to have an arbiter outside the normal justice system, and are bound by contract to agree to the judgement.

If we have Judge Judy, why not Rabbi Schwartzman or Imam Hassan bin-Nasiyrah? I hate to say it, but it sounds like something that will help keep petty cases out of our already overburdened court system.

Click to expand...

The difference is that Judge Judy only handles small claims as far as I know, not heavier stuff, and the producers pay all the awards anyway, so the participants don't lose anything by appearing except their dignity.