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

Comment

← New Report - Sharia Law in Britain: A Threat to One Law for All and Equal Rights

stephenray's Avatar Jump to comment 51 by stephenray

@Philoctetes:

Most of us will not have a fine idea of the subtleties of sharia law, nor would we want to.

I would certainly recommend familiarising yourself before filling your internet keyboard with ammunition. This would apply to anything, not just sharia law.

Equally only lawyers would produce arguments over subtle divisions where there is a universal perception that the rulings of a sharia court can result in the gruesome death or mutilation of an individual guilty of nothing more than thought crime or natural behaviour.

If you think the distinction between criminal offences and punishments, and civil law and remedies, is "subtle" then you must be an extremely coarse-grained thinker. Good job you didn't select Protagoras as your forum name.

That this HAS happened in the world means that it CAN happen here if circumstances change sufficiently to permit it.

Erm...I think I said that very thing. It's the 'sufficiently' that is the kicker. You and I would both grow old and die before any such fundamental change could come about.

Granting some token powers to localised sharia courts could be the first circumstance of that change.

Oh noes! The 'thin edge of the wedge' argument!! I must retyre defeeted. Get real, willya?

The law can be an Ass.

This is a dangerous speech to adopt. Dickens puts it in the mouth of Mr Bumble, one of the most morally bankrupt characters in Oliver Twist, drawn as a contrast to Fagin, who is immoral outside of society, whereas Bumble sets out to benefit from the immorality that exists within society. Are you sure you want to align yourself with such a person?

Lawyers thrive on interpretation. No lawyer can make a living unless there is another lawyer around with whom to dispute.

Well, gosh. Now you want to move from parading your ignorance of just sharia law, to law in general . Plenty of lawyers make a living without ever entering into a dispute with another lawyer. Company lawyers, landlord and tenant specialists, marine lawyers, private client lawyers (the ones who draft wills and administer estates), conveyancers... you can think of them as 'transactional lawyers'.

You probably intended to say 'litigators'. But plenty of litigation goes on with a lawyer on one side and no lawyer on the other. You are making the classic error (a rather dim one, actually) of confusing the lawyer with the litigant. However, there isn't the space here to educate you in legal theory.

There there is sufficient will, coupled with opportunity, even the most hideous outcomes are possible.

Undisputable. Now, if you will just explain how NOT classifying sharia ADR as unlawful would lead to acquiescing in honour killings and stoning adulterers, maybe you will convince me that I have been in error.

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:08:21 UTC | #482598