This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Now Muslims Get Their Own Laws In Britian

Now Muslims Get Their Own Laws In Britian - Comments

42nd's Avatar Comment 1 by 42nd

behold... beginning of the end of western civilization, and no one even seems to care.

Tue, 01 May 2007 14:15:00 UTC | #33983

PeterK's Avatar Comment 2 by PeterK

"..behold... beginning of the end of western civilization, and no one even seems to care..."

..yep, and Dubya just announced he vetoed congress...

Tue, 01 May 2007 14:19:00 UTC | #33985

cagliost's Avatar Comment 3 by cagliost

Private courts like these are legal. A similar things is "Judge Judy" in the US. Both parties agree that their complaint will be heard by a private judge, and agree to abide by the decision (indeed, are legally bound to (with Judge Judy, damages are limited to $5000)).
Jewish courts have existed in the UK for a while.
Remember, both parties must agree to go to a private court, otherwise a public court decides. (An issue might be if people are pressured to go to a private court under duress (similarly, it is up to the individual whether they want to wear a headscarf, but people can be pressured to do so).

Tue, 01 May 2007 14:31:00 UTC | #33989

Ivan The Not So Bad's Avatar Comment 4 by Ivan The Not So Bad

To put this in context, The Daily Express is a Princess Diana obsessed, racist, homophobic and utterly crackers right-wing rag with no credibility whatsoever beyond a declining circulation of thoroughly confused readers who find even the heroic small mindedness of the Daily Mail to be insufficiently offensive.

It is published by the man (I use the term loosely) who also brings us such delights as "Asian Babes" and "Extreme Housewives" (I am not making this up).

Tue, 01 May 2007 14:35:00 UTC | #33992

jorgepolak's Avatar Comment 5 by jorgepolak

"Remember, both parties must agree to go to a private court..."

If a religion treats women as property and gives them no voice, how can they possibly choose which court they go to?

Besides, even if two individuals agree to resolve their differences themselves, they must still follow the law of the land. This is why dueling is illegal.

Tue, 01 May 2007 14:37:00 UTC | #33993

weavehole's Avatar Comment 6 by weavehole

Well, it seems to me she lived her life like a candle in the wind. Oh sorry, different Express article... this one seems more fueled by racism than rationalism. File under I for Ignore, everyone else will. Erm, 'cept possibly BNP.

Tue, 01 May 2007 14:49:00 UTC | #33998

Roll's Avatar Comment 7 by Roll

"Ever since I arrived here in the 1960s there has been a case of women being forced to get married, others forced to get married, but unhappy afterwards. Until now there was no organisation which could Islamically solve their problems."

Ahh! So this is the vanguard of women's rights! Silly me.

Tue, 01 May 2007 15:14:00 UTC | #34002

BaronOchs's Avatar Comment 8 by BaronOchs

The last cleric who tried to keep his own courts (Thomas Becket) got his head split open in his own Cathedral.

Dewsbury turned out the highest vote for the ludicrous british nationalist party at the last general election, with them gaining over 6000 votes. Admittedly there were incidental reasons for this (the conservative and labour candidates were both asian, there was no UKIP or Veritas candidate to split up the right wing vote and the BNP concentrated their campaigning there). Of course activity like this will be exploited as much as possible by the bnp and their ilk.

But this is a dangerous and subversive gesture. The article says it may provide a window of help for Muslim women (for instance) who will not use the public courts. The Muslim community should work to remove the obstacles people feel in doing so, i.e. lessening segregation not increasing it, and furthering ghettoisation. Also I recall (though I may be wrong) Sharia demands about four witnesses to substantiate a woman's claims compared to just one for a man.

Which idiot for that matter gave this court charity status?

Tue, 01 May 2007 15:36:00 UTC | #34006

BaronOchs's Avatar Comment 9 by BaronOchs

Needless to say these courts will doubtlessly acquire their own little gangs of thugs to enforce their wise decisions, if they haven't done so already.

Tue, 01 May 2007 15:42:00 UTC | #34008

vertigo25's Avatar Comment 10 by vertigo25

I have to agree with weavehole. This is pretty much just an extremely slanted article promoting nationalism and xenophobia.

Every religion has similar "courts," and they are not in anyway a challenge to governmental law. Aside from religions there are other groups who have their own judicial systems such as universities and athletic organizations.

To be honest, even with my disdain of religion (especially the Abrahamic kind), I'm a bit disappointed that rd.net chose to republish this chest-beating piece. It's a not too thinly veiled racist inspired piece, and I certainly hope that the RD crew don't subscribe to this brand of irrational hate propaganda.

Tue, 01 May 2007 15:43:00 UTC | #34009

Ohnhai's Avatar Comment 11 by Ohnhai

As long as it is not treated as a 'Replacement' of UK law then fine. they can over legislate them selves as much as they like. But sadly I think there are many Muslims who would welcome Sharia as a direct replacement and not as a subordinate supplement where it doest contradict the law of the land.

Despite what may be held by some,Sharia Law as laid down by these private courts can not condone inter marital violence of any kind as that is prohibited by UK law. Should they do so then they are directly in breach of UK law and can and should be held accountable.

I just wish more UK resident Muslim women would realise this and understand that they DON'T have to live under Sharia law (enforced by the husband or these courts) if they don't want to.

TO: Vertigo25:
RD.NET republished many articles that are pro the general consensus and many that are anti the general consensus. RD.net is a site that doesn't stifle the opposing view, but shows it in it's true colours. Most of us here are smart enough to see through blatant or veiled homophobia, racism or other nasties.

Tue, 01 May 2007 16:42:00 UTC | #34020

Ohnhai's Avatar Comment 12 by Ohnhai

BTW: Why is the woman in the picture covering her eyes??!!? is she afraid we will recognise her face!!

Tue, 01 May 2007 16:47:00 UTC | #34022

anotherclinton's Avatar Comment 13 by anotherclinton

Is the bespectacled Daughter of Islam in the photo giving the camera the British version of the finger (Never learned the technical term for that)?

Tue, 01 May 2007 16:59:00 UTC | #34025

EriolTolkien's Avatar Comment 14 by EriolTolkien

the Fingers ?(technical term) ... yes, yes she is.

I am still pondering the phrase "Islamically solve their problems." WTF??

lemme see; Germany tried to "Nazistically solve their problems" = the Final Solution (which was neither)

Russia tried to "Stalinistically solve their problems" = Purges Propaganda & Prisons

and not to forget America trying to ">cough< Democratically solve their problems" = the world today.

sigh, hang on lads its gonna be a bumpy ride.

Tue, 01 May 2007 17:38:00 UTC | #34036

v4ri4bl3's Avatar Comment 15 by v4ri4bl3

I don't really respect this article much either. It sounds like nothing more than hearsay. Without an actual look at the practices going on it's impossible to determine if it is acceptable practice or not. This whole thing sounds like someone shouting "THEY ARE DOING A BUNCH OF WEIRD STUFF BEHIND CLOSED DOORS!!!"

Tue, 01 May 2007 18:09:00 UTC | #34041

Russell Blackford's Avatar Comment 16 by Russell Blackford

The article is too sensationalist and short on substance for me to draw any conclusions one way or the other. I'd hate to see this system of courts get any official recognition. However, if it's all really little more than a system of voluntary private conciliation and arbitration, with the outcomes subject to the oversight of the ordinary court system, it might not be bad; it might even do some good, depending on all the details.

Sensationalist (and possibly misleading) journalism is another problem for Western societies - it's not as if sectarianism is the only one.

Tue, 01 May 2007 18:31:00 UTC | #34047

h2g2bob's Avatar Comment 17 by h2g2bob

@Ivan The Not So Bad
I could not have put it better. The Express is the Daily Mail on crack.

Tue, 01 May 2007 20:16:00 UTC | #34056

oskorei's Avatar Comment 18 by oskorei

I am sorry; at a risk of sounding "nationalistic", I must say that people who move into any country must accept the due processes and laws of that country. If Muslims want to impose specific Islamic laws onto Britain, they must proceed by means provided democratically, or else have a violent revolution, instituting their own government, or be removed. I see no other options...Damn...and I consider myself strongly leaning towards anarchism! Maybe I am wrong (about myself, that is).

Tue, 01 May 2007 22:33:00 UTC | #34067

MartinSGill's Avatar Comment 19 by MartinSGill

I must actually agree with oskorei.

The short of it is that they choose to live here, it's easy enough to get a passport and go elsewhere, this is a free country after all. I think it's time we gave a little less respect to their views and insisted they give a little more respect to ours. If British society is really that opposed to their views why not go somewhere that supports their views?

We as a society complain about all those people that come here wanting freedom and prosperity, yet those people that don't want freedom don't seem to want to leave.

I suspect that these radical Muslims want too much. They want all the prosperity and affluence that a free society brings without the actual freedom. If they get their way they'll lose both freedom and prosperity, as will the rest of us.

One thing is sure, if any ruling this Sharia "court" actually makes contravenes British law, then they'll find themselves in big trouble.

Here's an interesting thought... it says only Muslims are allowed inside. If I as an atheist wanted to see how a court like that worked and they denied me entry, I wonder if I'd have a case against them under religious discrimination laws.

Tue, 01 May 2007 23:08:00 UTC | #34069

MartinSGill's Avatar Comment 20 by MartinSGill

I suspect some will read into what I've said as being BNP-esque, the truth is I'm actually mostly pro-immigration (with safe-guards). People choose to come to the UK because, when all is said and done, this is one of the richest, safest and most free and liberal countries in the world and anyone that wants to contribute to that and earn a share of that freedom and prosperity is more than welcome.

In this one respect, I think America might well be ahead of us.

Most immigrants I know (ironically, possibly even the fundamentalist Muslims) work hard and long and contribute much more to our society than some of our own population, that does nothing more than sit at home all day, living off benefits, watching TV.

Tue, 01 May 2007 23:21:00 UTC | #34070

ktillyer's Avatar Comment 21 by ktillyer

To 'anotherclinton'
The 'V-sign' is itself intended to be offensive, as I'm sure you've gathered, and was racial in origin. It matters which way round one's hand is held when giving the 'V'. Palm facing out it means V-for-Victory a la Winston Churchill circa 1940. Palm facing in and it basically means (these days) F*ck off. It's origin lies in the Anglo-French medieval wars when it was customary to cut off the bow-string fingers of captured enemy archers. The act of gesturing to the enemy with the fingers in this way was to show them you could still shoot a bow at them - and would.
BTW, how do we even know the people in the photo ARE women? A baby-buggy and Dame Edna glasses do not a woman make.

Tue, 01 May 2007 23:36:00 UTC | #34072

AdrianT's Avatar Comment 22 by AdrianT

This is crazy. Whatever the credibility of the source of this particular article, any attempt to set up Sharia or any other legal system outside that of the British judiciary must be stopped. I think though, we need to have a comment from, for instance, gay muslims on things like this.

Tue, 01 May 2007 23:50:00 UTC | #34074

gcdavis's Avatar Comment 24 by gcdavis

This first surfaced six months ago (not exactly a scoop for the Express) so I am reposting this comment

We haven't had much discussion about multiculturalism so I am about to leap in head first! Immigration to the UK is not a new phenomenon, throughout our history we have absorbed immigrants, most have come from Europe and have been racially and culturally similar and after a couple of generations most have become indistinguishable from the rest of the population. It is only since the WW2 that we have seen mass immigration; by people who looked and behaved very differently to us. They came from the Caribbean, India and Pakistan as well as sizeable numbers from West Africa and South East Asia. These immigrants have tended to live in fairly large communities rather than spread out and many have preferred to maintain this separation and insularity. This has given rise to the concept of multiculturalism.

I think the advocacy of multiculturalism in the UK is something we will live to regret, it encourages cultural apartheid and is a breeding ground for religious intolerance and extremism. The alternative to multiculturalism is surely an expectation that when immigrants come to our country they adapt to our customs, culture, law and language and that they abandon any native customs that conflict with those of the host nation.

So what or who is the host nation? Too big a subject to debate in one post; it suffices to say that it requires a notion of a British (or indeed English) cultural identity and that is a difficult to pin down. One characteristic is our traditional fairness and tolerance; another is our fervent support of free speech. We are subject to and protected by a legal system developed and refined over many centuries. It is not perfect, but it has many checks and balances that make justice more likely and crucially it is independent from government, religious and other pressures.

So where is multiculturalism leading us? Well according to the BBC Law in Action programme, one potentially dangerous development is that of alternative "legal" systems; these informal "village" courts, based on alien tribal and religious customs, have begun to appear within some ethnic minority/religious groups to resolve civil disputes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6190080.stm
How long before they try to expand their "remit?

Of course multiculturalism is inextricably bound to religion; hence this post that I hope will provoke a response. Finally I would be appalled if these comments should portray me as racist. I am not! But debate unfettered by political correctness is what atheists are good at

Wed, 02 May 2007 00:06:00 UTC | #34078

Bonzai's Avatar Comment 23 by Bonzai

While on paper people only go to these courts on a voluntary basis but in practice many women would be pressured into it. You probably know there was a compaign to allow Sharia in family arbitrations in Ontario, Canada. Even before it was successful some imams already said that muslims who didn't chose Sharia when that option was availiable should be considered apostates. Thankfully the move was defeated as a result of an impressive counter compaign led by moderate muslims. The government announced a catagorical ban of *all* religious arbitrations. It was a victory for secularism. I think perhaps the U.K should consider doing the same.

Btw, moderate muslims, especially a few very outspoken muslim women should be credited for this victory. The mainstream secular society was by and large uninterested, perhaps thinking that it was primarily a muslim issue rather than an issue of equality under one law. Some muddled headed secular liberals actually supported the proposal in the name of "multi-culturalism".

Wed, 02 May 2007 00:06:00 UTC | #34077

Bonzai's Avatar Comment 25 by Bonzai

I don't think multiculturalism per se is the problem. In the U.K (and Europe in general) you don't really have multicultralism but what Amartya Sen called "plual monocultutralism" which is an adapatation of the colonial technique to manage the immigrant population.

Multi-culturalism by and large works very well in Canada. It is not an alternative to integration, but rather it provides a setting for immigrants to integrate in their own pace. It has been quite successful for most immigrant groups, the radical musims are an anomaly. Most immigrants are not hostile to the basic values of secular democracy like these people.

The U.K's tolerence of Islamism is imo a strange quid pro quo offered to the muslim population because of Iraq. This is patronizing, condescending and racist. This kind of policies empower some of the most socially reactionary factions within the muslim community. The Blair government seems to consider any mulsim cleric a "moderate" regardless how odious his social views are as long as he doesn't call for jihad.

Wed, 02 May 2007 00:16:00 UTC | #34080

gcdavis's Avatar Comment 26 by gcdavis

Point taken Bonzai but each country is different. The UK is a small crowded place. Recent stats show that in UK primary schools English is not the first language for one out of every seven children. Imagine the strain that puts on the education system. Since Poland joined the EU a few years back we have had 600,000 Polish migrants, most of them Catholics.

Wed, 02 May 2007 00:27:00 UTC | #34082

Russell Blackford's Avatar Comment 27 by Russell Blackford

If it's a voluntary private arbitration system, I don't see how it can be stopped, any more than you could stop two people in a commercial dispute from agreeing to abide by the opinion of the local imam, or the local vicar, or a stray barrister, or someone from the chamber of commerce. There are already numerous alternative dispute resolution arrangements going on outside of the real legal system, and this is usually thought of as a good thing to take pressure of the courts, deliver a less formal and expensive venue, etc., etc. We may not much like it being done in this particular context, associated with notoriously patriarchal religious authorities, but I don't see how we can consistently stop them, and only them, from setting up a system of unofficial alternative dispute resolution.

In my opinion, the principled role for the state with these things is to give them no official recognition at all, either to support them (financially or otherwise) or to try to suppress them. Treat it exactly as if it were a commercial service offered by, say, a barrister looking to make a buck by offering mediation services to litigants. That rules out any charitable status or other official concessions.

In some cases, where the courts need to give their imprimatur before an actual outcome can be implement, that kind of outcome can be scrutinised, but that's not the same thing as the state trying to stop the whole process.

Of course, if it's more than that (i.e. if it is going to get any official recognition as part of the UK legal system, or if it is made compulsory) I'll be the first person to oppose it. Well, not literally - since I'm from Australia, not the UK - but I'd certainly oppose it in my own country.

Wed, 02 May 2007 00:28:00 UTC | #34083

Fanusi Khiyal's Avatar Comment 28 by Fanusi Khiyal

I'm having trouble believing these comments.

Question: When fifty percent of British Muslims want Britain under Shariah law...
When the supporters are largely the young men, who form the vanguard of most revolutionary movements...
When they can be whipped into a frenzy calling for "Death to those who behead Islam"...

Does anyone really think that Shariah courts will be limited to the Muslims? Does anyone really think it is going to stay in quiet ghettos and leave the rest of us alone?

Being against Muslim immigration has nada to do with being pro-BNP, or racist or anything else. Hindus and Sikhs will actually be even worse off than Christian and Jews under Shariah. Google "dhimmi" and inform yourself about that.

I am in favour of immigration, so long as that is not Muslim immigration. The way I see it, unlimited Muslim immigration is tantamount to throwing Christians, Jews, Atheists, Hindus, Sikhs, Taoists and so under into the meat-grinder.

And if our elites do not start acknowledging the painfully obvious, then they will be inviting serious problems. Because, as things stand, the only political party that's being honest about what Islam actually teaches and advocates is the BNP. And when people are frightened and have no other outlet, Bad Things Happen.

Wed, 02 May 2007 00:31:00 UTC | #34086

A Norwegian's Avatar Comment 29 by A Norwegian

The Britts have finally lost it.

Wed, 02 May 2007 00:37:00 UTC | #34089

Bonzai's Avatar Comment 30 by Bonzai

Russell Blackford wrote:

>>If it's a voluntary private arbitration system, I don't see how it can be stopped, any more than you could stop two people in a commercial dispute from agreeing to abide by the opinion of the local imam, or the local vicar, or a stray barrister, or someone from the chamber of commerce<<

I disagree. A dispute settlement has to be ultimately sanctioned by the law of the land. For example, a private prenubtial agreement that one may sign with his wife that would allow him to not pay child support in the event of a devorce will not be recognized as legitimate. Sharia is highly patriarchal and it tends to be interpreted by the most conservative religious scholars. The state must not be expected to rubberstamp decisions reached by such "courts" or it would be a travesty. That being the case any decision reached by such "courts" should be considered null and void.

On a broader point, everyone is supposedly equal before the law. It is intolerable in a secular democracy that citizens are treated differently based on their religion affiliations. A modern state is made up of individual citizens, not a collective of tribes,--hence I disagree with some posters who seem to be saying that it is ok as long as Sharia only applies to muslims. This is a matter of principle.

Wed, 02 May 2007 00:55:00 UTC | #34094