Sharia Law now a reality in Britain.

[belboid]

go on DimmerDan, make an idiot of yourself on some other point.

If an agreement to go to a Sharia Court wasn't taken voluntarily (which, as I've said above, is a danger) then any ruling of that court wouldn't be considered valid in English (or Scottish ) law.

I'd shut up if I were you, you're on such a loser here. A bit of research (and basic english comprehension) wouldn't go amiss before you try to butt in again

 

[Wolveryeti]

Jesus wept. The level of stupid you exhibit should be on show at museums.

Breaking it down for the remedial classrostitutes provide consent in an individual transaction, but a laissez faire "consent = no problem" approach shouldn't universally be applied to people whose prospects are so limited that they have few, if any other opportunities

In a similar vein, moral principles applying to consent/free will that might make perfect sense when applied to you or I make rather less sense when we're talking about communities that have integration and language difficulties. Given the likelihood that they haven't have the alternatives explained to them, informed choice is not really an option.

Again, I'd like to reiterate my former advice about killing yourself. I think it's a really solid plan.

 

[belboid]

just show you've lost the argument then, tithead.

Well, the little bit of argument you have attempted - one that involves totally ignoring anything that contradicts your small minded bullshit. Wonderful bit of stereotyping you've carried out there regarding the muslim community you clearly know jack shit about (so many things you know jack shit about). your drivel re language has absolutely no bearing on whether or not someone is able to consent to attending a Sharia court - indeed, if it has any baring, it works the other way! Not that there;s any point trying to explain such matters to you, you wouldn't listen, you're not interested in anything except your pseduo-liberal version of paki bashing.

 

[Wolveryeti]

Yea whatever you win. Couldn't really be bothered to read what you wrote, but it seemed like yah boo sucks I'm right you're wrong. Bored wasting my time on cretins. Bye

 

[belboid]

oh please let that be the one true thing you've said!

 

[_angel_]

this would still follow the law of the land tho. it would be used when matters of a, largely personal, contractual, nature are involved. And it would only be used (supposedly) when all parties agreed to use it.

This is the part I don't really understand, if both parties really were in that much agreement about the rules they wanted to abide by, you'd think they'd sort stuff out between themselves?

Can't help feeling that people will get forced to accept verdicts that perhaps they actually DON'T agree with but have been coerced into.

Religious courts for civilians are a bad idea.

 

[Detroit City]

Religious courts for civilians are a bad idea.

unless said civilians actually would prefer a court of religion...

 

[_angel_]

unless said civilians actually would prefer a court of religion...

And if the said civilian is a husband beating his wife, and he's "chosen" to have the case dealt with in a religious, not secular criminal court, we trust that the wife has fully agreed without any threat of coercion?

Religious courts belong to the past ...

 

[Detroit City]

And if the said civilian is a husband beating his wife, and he's "chosen" to have the case dealt with in a religious, not secular criminal court, we trust that the wife has fully agreed without any threat of coercion?...

what if its the wife beating the husband and he doesn't want the humiliation of a trial in a public secular court?

ahh you didn't think about that one did you?

 

[belboid]

This is the part I don't really understand, if both parties really were in that much agreement about the rules they wanted to abide by, you'd think they'd sort stuff out between themselves?

oh come on - people are weird, they agree to things for all sorts of reasons. Don't forget, they aren't dealing with criminal cases, but with civil ones, so they're about personal agreements etc. Why wouldn't someone who considers themselves to follow a particular code of ethics want to have a hearing that is explicitly concerned with adhering to that code of ethics.

 

[belboid]

And if the said civilian is a husband beating his wife, and he's "chosen" to have the case dealt with in a religious, not secular criminal court, we trust that the wife has fully agreed without any threat of coercion?

good question - but actual domestic violence cases shouldnt end up in siuch a court, as they are criminal not civil. Dont know enough about the background to the cases reported earlier, but they must have been before any charges were laid, or they wouldn't be eligible to be heard there.

 

[_angel_]

good question - but actual domestic violence cases shouldnt end up in siuch a court, as they are criminal not civil. Dont know enough about the background to the cases reported earlier, but they must have been before any charges were laid, or they wouldn't be eligible to be heard there.

You're damn right they shouldn't be hearing criminal cases there!

 

[editor]

Again, I'd like to reiterate my former advice about killing yourself. I think it's a really solid plan.

Er, hello? Advising people to kill themselves?

Stick to arguing the topic please.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What you mean by 'voluntarily'.

Do prostitutes always ply their trade voluntarily?

Do muslims always agree to be bound by Sharia ruling voluntarily?

etc.

Because Sharia courts, Jewish courts and Church courts are all subsidiary to British civil courts, all decisions (which have to be filed with the civil courts in the usual manner) are able to be re-visited by the civil court itself at the behest of either party involved.
That mean, for example, that if a Muslim woman is coerced into agreeing to the ruling of a sharia court, she may apply to have the ruling set aside by the civil court with no fear and no favour.

 

[ViolentPanda]

This is the part I don't really understand, if both parties really were in that much agreement about the rules they wanted to abide by, you'd think they'd sort stuff out between themselves?

You're missing the place that tradition has in the lives of many people.
Those traditions may seem like loonspuddery to the majority, but for some gullible folk it validates their whole lifestyle to be able to have a legal decision passed by their own community "judge" rather than by a secular magistrate.

Can't help feeling that people will get forced to accept verdicts that perhaps they actually DON'T agree with but have been coerced into.

Religious courts for civilians are a bad idea.

Except that anyone coerced still has recourse to the secular civil courts for redress.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You're damn right they shouldn't be hearing criminal cases there!

Which is why they're not allowed to.

 

[Zachor]

You're missing the place that tradition has in the lives of many people.
Those traditions may seem like loonspuddery to the majority, but for some gullible folk it validates their whole lifestyle to be able to have a legal decision passed by their own community "judge" rather than by a secular magistrate.
.

Agree with you there. As some said on another board 'I don't want the Lord Chief Justice telling me whether my sandwich is kosher or not'

Except that anyone coerced still has recourse to the secular civil courts for redress.

Yup the ultimate authoritiy over the religious courts are the civil ones.