Revealed: UK first official sharia courts

[WhiteTara]

Source: Times On Line

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Read more: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

---

I feel sick to my stomach.

edited for oops on the title

[ogneopasno]

1. Wow. This is just wrong.

nt.

[pegleg]

47. I agree. This is tantamount to encouraging wife beating

and God only knows what else. I wonder if Muslims in the country are going to have a choice as to which court they will be judged by?

[DS1]

2. Oh fuck me! Grow a spine, England!

Goddammit!

[Taverner]

36. Exactly

[CJCRANE]

3. "Jewish Beth Din courts...have existed in Britain for more than 100 years".

"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."

[aquamarina]

4. Seriously, are they really going to allow "adulterers" be stoned?

This is batshit crazy.

[UK populist]

9. They cannot enact anything that breaks BRITISH Criminal Law

Lets not play in to the hysteria of the religious fanatics saying that ISLAMIC Law has taken over in Britain because you only show yourself as being as ignorant as the Zealots you should be fighting against.
As stated above many different religions have civil laws enacted in countries which are primarily live under a different religion. This is a perfect example of the religious tolerance we try to inspire in all our citizens. ALL PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO ADHERE TO THERE OWNS BELIEFS AS LONG AS THE LAW IS NOT BROKEN.

Just to add so I cannot be accused of pandering to any religious groups I AM A WHITE BRITISH BORN ATHIEST.

[northernlights]

5. criminies, will they be stoning rape victims to death?

And we though palin was bad only wanting to ruin innocent child victim's lives by forcing them to carry and give birth to the rapist's offspring.

I guess I can cross the UK off the list of countries I'll emmigrate to if the fundie whackos succeed in taking over the sad remnants of the USofA.

[LeftishBrit]

40. No

They cannot do anything that contravenes British law. Or they'd be in prison.

I oppose ANY religious intrusion into law; but I think the threat is being exaggerated here. All kinds of organizations set rules and make decisions, which are nevertheless subordinate to British law. A church or a synagogue or a Residents Association or the local darts club can sit down and vote on a particular issue and make a decision. If the decision is illegal in any way, then the law of the land will not permit it to be enacted.

The Muslim population of Great Britain is at most 3%; and the country as a whole is very secular - and also tends to be suspicious of anything, even highly positive, that comes from 'immigrants'. So no, no one is going to let Muslims - or any religious group - set up a theocracy here!

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Revealed: distorted bullshit

"Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case. "

Voluntary submission to arbitration by these courts by all parties.

Limited range of cases that can be submitted to these courts. Nobody is going to be put to death for adultery.

A similar system for jewish religious nutcases has existed in GB for 100 years with nobody being bothered by it other than the religious nutcases who voluntarily submit to its idiocy.

[BooScout]

21. Thankyou.......

Unfortunately most people here will run around beating their chests and wailing about the tragedy of it all without bothering to get the WHOLE story.

[EFerrari]

42. Oh, thank God. I thought the Muslins were coming! lol

[cstanleytech]

7. Before some of you go all crazy about this

my question is if its like arbitration where all parties involved have to agree to it before a case can be heard before this court?

[Warren Stupidity]

8. yes of course it is voluntary

everyone reacts without even bothering to read the link.

pavlov's dogs we are.

[cstanleytech]

10. Yeah I read it before I posted but I just wanted to be sure.

[ksimons]

11. sounds like The People's Court - only it ain't on TV

but maybe it should be - so if this apparent form of 'binding arbitration' as I see it, gets out of hand, it'll be obvious and can be stopped. Otherwise, I guess if both parties agree to settle there, it's no different than what we have in arbitration. Or am I missing something. I could very well be wrong on this.

[Speck Tater]

12. Of course we now need Christian courts and Hindu courts and Buddhist Courts,

and Zoroastrian courts and Wiccan courts, and Druid courts and atheist courts, and ....

[Davis_X_Machina]

14. ...the American Arbitration Association. n/t

[The Liberal Thinker]

13. I don't give a shit if it's voluntary.

This is bullshit.

[Davis_X_Machina]

15. It's alternative dispute resolution. n/t

[Hestia]

16. Doesn't it feel like we are on the sidelines watching some 21st

century Holy War? On both sides, the extremists leaders vying for the most attention and getting it. What's the next step, mandatory store closings on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, because those days conflicts with the Big 3's days of worship? How is the Christian faction going to top this decision, in order to spin for their side?

[cstanleytech]

17. Maybe just a little but I'm not to concerned, its not mandatory for them to use this court

its just another option for them, thats all.

[Ex Lurker]

24. Officially optional, de facto mandatory....

muslims will be under tremendous peer pressure/coercion to use the sharia courts.

[cstanleytech]

38. And thats a different issue, you get that problem with the current

court system as well, also spouses of both sexes are pressured in the catholic church for example not to seek divorce because the church says it won't grant the sacraments if they do divorce.

[Codeine]

29. Wives of fundamentalist husbands

may find it less "voluntary" than it is advertised as being. No court should exist with one of it's foundations being the subservience of women.

[kiranon]

32. Agree - nothing voluntary about it for women.

One law, one nation and no religious overlays that will only cause division.

[nam78_two]

18. Good grief

This is fucking creepy-sharia courts? Religion is getting out of control all over the world. Talk about a fucking opiate for the masses.

[Sultana]

19. .

:popcorn:

[Coventina]

20. If someone wants to abide by Islamic law/courts shouldn't they

live in an Islamic country?

I'm all for freedom of religion. Go ahead and practice whatever you want. But when it comes to religion and state working together, I get hives.

I was unaware of the pre-existing Jewish courts, I'm against those as well.

I'd fight them tooth & nail if such institutions were proposed for this country. TOOTH & NAIL!

[get the red out]

22. Real freedom to choose a regular court?

I hope there is some way that people are really free to choose a "real court" rather than a religious court. I hope someone who opted out of this wouldn't have to fear retribution within their religious community. There are all kinds of ways things are enforced, many of them are completely unofficial.

I would also fight this kind of thing here with everything in me! Religion has too much power in this world. And this country is a prime example in many ways. I always think of how this country treats these misogynist brain-washing cults with such undeserved respect (FLDS), while they are free to destroy the lives of countless women and girls for generations. The US is certainly not clean by any means. I have a passionate aversion to religions given the right to rule over people's lives and limit them in any way. It is never all "voluntary".

[Ex Lurker]

23. nail meet hammer. There will be tremendous peer pressure

for Muslims to use the sharia courts. This is a very bad turn of events for the UK. It's also one more issue to radicalize the white working class. The BNP is the big winner in all this.

[bitchkitty]

25. You've got to be kidding me. n/t

[dkofos]

26. How unjust.

[readmoreoften]

27. Ooo Noes! Muslims in Muslim communities allowed to decide civil disputes in their own way!

If you think they're going to allow women to be stoned to death you're insane.

[PassingFair]

28. Sharia law is fair to women?

Stoning aside, do you think
that Sharia divorce laws favor
women, especially as regards to
child support and custody?

[Posteritatis]

39. He said absolutely nothing of the sort. (nt)

[Codeine]

30. Communities

should not be allowed to establish separate laws that apply only to their members, especially when said laws are inherently unfair to women.

[Odin2005]

35. Especially when such communities commit "honor killings" and similar BS.

[Odin2005]

34. Religious Law has no place is modern Western society. Period. n/t.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Odin2005]

33. This is disgusting. Sharia Law violates fundamental human rights and thus the values of...

Western Civilization. I don't F-ing care if these are (as another poster stated) just "arbitration" courts and there are already such courts for Orthodox Jews. They should not exist, those Jewish ones that already exist should be shut down. Sexist, religious BS, and especially religious law in general, has no place in modern Western society. If you move to a Western Society you should adopt OUR values or simply don't come here. It's that simple.

[LeftishBrit]

41. Anything that violates human rights won't be permitted

These are not criminal courts; they involve arbitration on rather trivial issues and are totally subordinate to the British laws.

As others have said, there have been some Jewish courts for many years, and churches can set rules and make certain decisions. The point is that one can't really STOP anyone setting up a a tribunal - apart from religious groups, there are residents' groups, trade unions, workplace committees, sports clubs, etc.; and preventing them from meeting would require surveillance and freedom-of-speech restrictions that would themselves be unacceptable.

One can only insist that the British law overrides everything else. People who come here DO have to conform to the law; that trumps any sort of independent group's decisions. Moreover: any discrimination against women, gays or other group can be taken up with the Europaean Court of Human Rights, which further limits any power of decision-making by any religious group.

[buzzard]

37. It was bounced about here as well and thankfully was ruled out.

http://www.nosharia.com/Globe%20and%20Mail%2012,09McGuinty%20government%20rules%20out%20use%20of%20sharia%20law.htm

McGuinty government rules out use of sharia law

By COLIN FREEZE AND KAREN HOWLETT

Monday, September 12, 2005 Updated at 5:11 AM EDT

From Monday's Globe and Mail

Toronto — Seeking to end months of debate, Premier Dalton McGuinty now says "there will be no sharia law in Ontario" -- an announcement that should quell a growing public-relations crisis concerning the use of Islamic law, but which also exposes Queen's Park to attacks from other religions.
Following widespread condemnation of a plan that would formally allow the tenets of sharia to be used in resolving family disputes, the Premier said he'll make the boundaries between church and state clearer by banning faith-based arbitrations.
http://www.nosharia.com/Globe%20and%20Mail%2012,09McGuinty%20government%20rules%20out%20use%20of%20sharia%20law.htm

"Ontario explicitly gave the green light to such practices in its 1991 Arbitration Act. But as early as this fall, new Ontario laws may put a stop to religion-based settlements in matters such as child-custody disputes or inheritances.

This means that orthodox Jews and some Christian leaders may soon make a common cause with fundamentalist Muslims in seeking to limit the scope of the new proposals. our reaction is we're disappointed, we're very disappointed," said Joel Richler, chairman of the Ontario wing of the Canadian Jewish Congress.

"It's what we consider to be a knee-jerk reaction against the sharia issue."

He said orthodox Jews have used tribunals to settle family disputes for centuries, but the future of these tribunals is no longer clear in Ontario.

Many moderate Muslims say they are overjoyed by the Premier's announcement.

"I'm so happy today. It's a victory for the women's rights movement," said Homa Arjomand, an Iranian immigrant who has launched a campaign to stop sharia in Ontario.

"Women's rights are not protected by any religion," she said.

But fundamentalist Islam, in particular, can be harsh, she said."

[Coventina]

43. Most telling part of the article is that MODERATE Muslims are AGAINST them

And that Orthodox Jews and Christian Fundies are for them because they want their own.

That's all we need to know, I think!

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. What happened to the orthodox Jewish tribunals?

That was 3 years ago - have the other religious tribunals been banned yet?

[Nihil]

44. Calm down people ... read the article and quit the BS.

There are more ignorant knees jerking around here than at
a RNC hoedown ... it's just a fucking tribunal, not something
that allows the death sentence to be passed ...
:eyes:

[Marrah_G]

45. Slippery slope that England is choosing.

[LeftishBrit]

48. The 'slippery slope' started centuries ago...

with our having an Established Church, and no official separation of church and state.

Things are much better in this respect than they used to be. But bishops still sit in the House of Lords, and have some (if very limited) role in lawmaking. It's unclear what will happen when the reforms of the House of Lords are finalized.

I support complete separation of church and state' disestablishment of the church. It will come, one of these days, And no role of any religious organization (from any religion) in the law. You can't stop people from meeting and voting without unacceptable state intrusion - but you can make it clear that religion has no part in running a modern state. Guess who in this country has spoken out most strongly in favour of allowing Sharia courts?- The Archbishop of Canterbury! This IMO is probably because he realizes that religious involvement in law here is on its way out; and can only be temporarily preserved by getting different religious groups on the same side on
this matter.

[JonQ]

46. Granted it's not as bad as the title appeared

but it's still a major step in the wrong direction. "Slippery slope", remember that idea?

I would have a major problem if any religion was granted even very limited autonomy within the courts. Islam though seems to be particularly bad.

And does anyone really think that this is their goal, minor arbitration? I seriously doubt they will stop the pressure now that they have this right. They will likely keep pushing for greater and greater autonomy and any hesitance will be interpreted as an insult against Islam.

Don't give fundies an opening, ever.