Multi-culturalism boon or bane?

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by inked

And what does the Bishop-ness have to do with the factual state of the sharia courts in England?

Alot! Read the article again, and read a bit up on public law in England.

The author of this article uses if's and maybe's, potentials and circumstancial evidence:

"It appears that these tribunals are dealing not only with civil matters but with potentially criminal ones."

It appears. Potentially criminal ones.

"Are the police satisfied that this way of dealing with domestic violence is sufficient to protect women?"

Who knows? Are they? Do you think British Police are going to turn a blind eye if criminal behaviour is being perpetrated?

"Secondly, can the tribunals assure us that under Islamic law no form of physical violence against women is permissible?"

Can these tribunals assure us this? Then again, should we hold tribunals accountable to domestic violence that happens in Muslim families? Is the position of the tribunals overemphasized? How influential is it anyways?

"The system of public law, it seems, faces a challenge to its basic premise that all citizens must be treated alike."

It seems. Yes perhaps it seems that way..

..But I'll tell you what Inked, and you would have done well to have thought of this before you announce "Sharia in Britain": That what is really the challenge is not so much that there are Muslims whom seek to settle communal problems in tribunals (The word courts is far too strong), and that such a thing should be wrong (does not have to contradict British law at all! Nobody is saying that followers in Jehovas Witness should refrain from intra-community ways of solving disputes..), but whether British courts have yet to find any loopholes in the law which these tribunals might violate. And I say yet because if only one single example of a ruling that contradicts the law is found in such a tribunal it will be put under investigation and the potential loophole will be examined.

Let's see what the most senior judge in the Realm of England, Lord Chief Justice Phillips, has to say on the matter (this is July 2008):
"Phillips insisted last night there was "widespread misunderstanding" of the nature of sharia law, and argued: "There is no reason why sharia principles, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution [with the understanding] ... that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of mediation would be drawn from the Laws of England and Wales."

A very different story than the xenophobic one your painting.

[inked]

"Then again, should we hold tribunals accountable to domestic violence that happens in Muslim families?"

see:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melanieph...just-dim.thtml

http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gled...e-archbis.html

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melanieph...s-speech.thtml
"Either way, his proposal would also mean that Britain would simply abandon its female Muslim citizens whose parlous position in respect of forced marriages, honour killings and all the other horrors that follow from their second-class religious status would be institutionalised by giving sharia law official recognition. Dr Williams says such women should still retain the right of appeal to the English courts if their human rights were breached under sharia. What absurdity is this? It is the cultural assumptions which flow from sharia which lead to the oppression of Muslim women. How is the right of appeal to human rights law going to help women who are beaten and killed by men who do it in the name of religion? In order to protect our female Muslim citizens, we need to remove from them the yoke of sharia law, not institutionalise it with the seal of official approval."

"Yes, Jewish religious courts, like sharia courts, deal with such issues as dispute arbitration, family issues, marriage and divorce. But the Jewish courts have never sought official recognition of their rulings, and these are not recognised under English law. Their dispute resolution is informal and voluntary. Their religious marriage and divorce rituals have no status in English law (with the exception of one tiny wrinkle designed to help resolve an anomaly in Jewish divorce law which causes otherwise unavoidable distress); for the state to recognise their marriages or divorces, Jews have to marry or be divorced according to English law just like everyone else. If sharia courts were to operate in this way, there would be no problem. Why should anyone care, after all, what minorities are doing in the private sphere as long as it doesn’t break the law? But the crucial difference is that such Muslims want their rulings to be accepted by the state as having the same legal authority as English law — and Dr Williams is endorsing this. But it breaks the fundamental precept that Jews have always acknowledged — that as a minority they live under the law of the land and do not seek to change it to accommodate them."

See the difference, Coffeehouse?

Try for it. This is not xenophobia. It's law stuff.

You seem to react to everything by hyperbole, denigration, and ad hominem. Try for argument. Much more civilized and socially productive.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by inked

"Then again, should we hold tribunals accountable to domestic violence that happens in Muslim families?"

see:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melanieph...just-dim.thtml

http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gled...e-archbis.html

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melanieph...s-speech.thtml
"Either way, his proposal would also mean that Britain would simply abandon its female Muslim citizens whose parlous position in respect of forced marriages, honour killings and all the other horrors that follow from their second-class religious status would be institutionalised by giving sharia law official recognition. Dr Williams says such women should still retain the right of appeal to the English courts if their human rights were breached under sharia. What absurdity is this? It is the cultural assumptions which flow from sharia which lead to the oppression of Muslim women. How is the right of appeal to human rights law going to help women who are beaten and killed by men who do it in the name of religion? In order to protect our female Muslim citizens, we need to remove from them the yoke of sharia law, not institutionalise it with the seal of official approval."

"Yes, Jewish religious courts, like sharia courts, deal with such issues as dispute arbitration, family issues, marriage and divorce. But the Jewish courts have never sought official recognition of their rulings, and these are not recognised under English law. Their dispute resolution is informal and voluntary. Their religious marriage and divorce rituals have no status in English law (with the exception of one tiny wrinkle designed to help resolve an anomaly in Jewish divorce law which causes otherwise unavoidable distress); for the state to recognise their marriages or divorces, Jews have to marry or be divorced according to English law just like everyone else. If sharia courts were to operate in this way, there would be no problem. Why should anyone care, after all, what minorities are doing in the private sphere as long as it doesn’t break the law? But the crucial difference is that such Muslims want their rulings to be accepted by the state as having the same legal authority as English law — and Dr Williams is endorsing this. But it breaks the fundamental precept that Jews have always acknowledged — that as a minority they live under the law of the land and do not seek to change it to accommodate them."

See the difference, Coffeehouse?

Try for it. This is not xenophobia. It's law stuff.

You seem to react to everything by hyperbole, denigration, and ad hominem. Try for argument. Much more civilized and socially productive.

Taking shots at how I argue, simply because you're unable to argue back, is your problem, not mine

Try convincing. Much more interesting. But I see that is a quite steep hill to climb judging by the extreme views that you seem to hold.

[inked]

Oh, yes, Coffeehouse, I have extreme views for telling truth about Sharia and Britain.

Never fear, if this keeps up, Britain sha'n't:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-are-told.html

Love it while you can 'cuz it ain't long for this world. Britain as a word implies non-Britains and there are undoubted folk who feel excluded by such xenophobic language. Would earth-dweller do or does that offend fish?

[inked]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/S...ubContrassID=4

Applicable to the discussion of the limits of tolerance and Brittanic status now.

[Tessar]

I am temporarily locking this thread pending possible further action by the Administration.

[Tessar]

The thread has been reopened for debate.

[inked]

Oh, goody, the NEW YORK TIMES just had this report in its EUROPE section:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/wo..._r=2&ref=world

[inked]

The BBC had the Iranian President on as a reply to the Queen's Christmas message. Here is an interesting article from the Jerusalem Post that is very thought provoking and worth a read or two..........

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

[The Gaffer]

That link doesn't work for me.

It was on Channel 4, an independent commercial station, not the BBC.

Here's the full text, which I am sure you will read with interest:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...istmas-message

[inked]

"If Christ were on earth today, undoubtedly He would stand with the people in opposition to bullying, ill-tempered and expansionist powers.

"If Christ were on earth today, undoubtedly He would hoist the banner of justice and love for humanity to oppose warmongers, occupiers, terrorists and bullies the world over.

"If Christ were on earth today, undoubtedly He would fight against the tyrannical policies of prevailing global economic and political systems, as He did in His lifetime."

Like Hamas shooting rockets into Israel, I trust he means?

Or secondary status for all non-Islamic religions?

But from A's perspective, not all bad.

So, what'd ya think about the reassertion of crucifixion?

[The Gaffer]

Not sure what you mean by that question.

I wouldn't pay much attention to Ahmadinejad generally. It's a shame that Channel 4 chose to big him up in this way. I think he has a lot less power and influence than he would like us to believe. However, it serves his interests, and those of people in our countries who wish to demonise Iran, to do so.

[inked]

I was referring to this article: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

from the post above, Gaffer.

[The Gaffer]

Yes, Hamas are idiots. Let's kill everyone.

[inked]

Hamas, the popular peoples front for Iran and Iraq. I seem to recall the Brit reaction to the Blitz from a while ago. Is that a Brit lion holding down the scales?

[Count Comfect]

Inked, just to touch on your articles about sharia... from one of the Times articles you quote:

Originally Posted by Times Online

Dr. Hasan counsels women that they must have their civil marriages dissolved in the British civil system.

So long as this remains true, I cannot see what is objectionable in permitting people to have their religious scruples. No one is being legally kept in a marriage, or let out of one, by these courts. They are simply providing a service for those whose religious beliefs hold that a civil divorce is not enough to ritually clear themselves of the marriage - no different from a Catholic requesting an annulment from their Church even though a civil ceremony has already parted the couple. Or, going outside the field of marriage, it is similar to having a rabbi oversee the kashering of a kosher restaurant even though the Health Inspector also has to give his OK. Some people just have a greater religious obligation than their civil obligation. After all, the women could request a civil divorce anyway; they simply happen to believe that that is insufficient before God.

[inked]

Yes and no, CC. See post number 62 about the issues raised by this and the ability of women to get to civil court and get a divorce within the system of Sharia itself - on religious or any grounds.

[Count Comfect]

Yes, and no Inked. Because the bit I quoted above actually contradicts what you quoted in 62

Originally Posted by Inked

Their religious marriage and divorce rituals have no status in English law (with the exception of one tiny wrinkle designed to help resolve an anomaly in Jewish divorce law which causes otherwise unavoidable distress); for the state to recognise their marriages or divorces, Jews have to marry or be divorced according to English law just like everyone else. If sharia courts were to operate in this way, there would be no problem. Why should anyone care, after all, what minorities are doing in the private sphere as long as it doesn’t break the law? But the crucial difference is that such Muslims want their rulings to be accepted by the state as having the same legal authority as English law — and Dr Williams is endorsing this.

I agree with all of this but the last sentence; and the last sentence is the part contradicted by the "they must have their civil marriages dissolved in the British civil system" in the Times.

[The Gaffer]

It's Death that's holding down the scales. The "lion" is Tony Blair, UN/US/EU envoy to the Middle East as a poodle, wearing his Congressional Medal I suppose.

[inked]

CC, "for the state to recognise their marriages or divorces, Jews have to marry or be divorced according to English law just like everyone else. If sharia courts were to operate in this way, there would be no problem. Why should anyone care, after all, what minorities are doing in the private sphere as long as it doesn’t break the law? But the crucial difference is that such Muslims want their rulings to be accepted by the state as having the same legal authority as English law — and Dr Williams is endorsing this."

I assume that you mean "But the crucial difference is that such Muslims want their rulings to be accepted by the state as having the same legal authority as English law" as the part you disagree with. In which case, we are agreed. In the cited context of Jewish law and English law are clearly related in such a fashion that the law of the land is supreme. It bothers me that the request of the Muslims is that their desire is for their law to have the same authority as English law - in which case it effectively supplants English law.

Otherwise, I would say that the same relations as Jewish law (in the cited case) should be held valid.

Do you think it would be or should be?

Gaffer, that's a cutting analysis that is! But I would suggest that to be properly death the poodle should have a rocket or two in his possession with Iranian currency on its side so as to allow who exactly death is dealing with to be fairly shown. What do you think about that?