Sharia Law Spreads in the UK?

[o_ivaqual]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Either way, if it's not infringing on the rights of non-Muslims (or even Muslims outside these sects), then let them live the way they want. The government doesn't have to intervene at every point.

I would tend to agree with this with my heart if the bigger picture in time didn't tell me otherwise. This is now one more thing that puts distance between a minority and a country. You can't possibly invoke that they are discrimined against or put at large from life as an english citizen in every sense of the term as they are doing this to themselves. What now makes them english citizens ? What is left ? They now are living in what is in essence a distinct and different virtual state by refusing more and more to embrace their citizenship ! What good can [possibly] come out of this ?

Under these conditions, not prosecuting becomes an exploit of this particular liberty and not a "reasonable" use.

Originally Posted by uBeR

Yes, I believe B did. If the B's community wants to banish him for simply wanting to go to English court, then that's B's community's decision. But then B must really weigh whether that is the right community for him or not. If you think you are living in a world without peer pressure, persuasion, incentives, or sanctions you are living in a world of fallacy.

There are two answers to this. The first one is B didn't even think about it. It just seemed natural to go "community" with the trial. This is preoccupying for all the mentioned reasons.
Or, B considers this isn't right. He believes living in a country means following at least its law system, or maybe even he seeks revenge and the "community" laws are gentler in this particular case in terms of punishment than the official ones. The thing is, letting people apply the Sharia like this only magnifies peer pressure and "justifies" it. Sometimes it's just too strong, and you have to choose between your life (perhaps sometimes even in the litteral sense) and what is really right in the big picture - following the official system in this case. Actually I'm sure I would give in, just like probably about everyone else. The conditions under which you are able to not prosecute someone should be revised. I'm hearing the worst kinds of crimes will not let "be flown" : well, a stabbing was, and it's pretty bad to me.

[o_psycnet]

That's the 'problem' with rights man...it's all or nothing.

I guess the big irony is that they use your right of free speech/religious practice to impose 'voluntary' restrictions within their own communities

[o_backstaber]

Originally Posted by ekiM

Apparently we still have some vestiges of liberty. Shocking, ain't it?

Completely unrelated mike. I think you just enjoy attacking anything I say, even if it's just a question. Since I don't live in the UK and not all News Sources tell everything, I wanted to know what the people who actually live there know.

But no, since I introduced to topic there must be some hidden agenda, right? Get real.

[o_ekim]

What? I don't even know who you are.. I can't recall ever responding to one of your posts before.

[o_ekim]

Originally Posted by nagual678

You haven't understood me. A stabs B. B wants to prosecute. There is an official law system that is officially in place to take care of this, but here comes "peer pressure". The community B lives in pressures him not to follow a set of beliefs it does not recognize itself in (the official law system), but rather another one that comes from the culture of the community (the accepted law system). Maybe B would have done differently and made the other choice, but doing so would discredit him and undermine other people's view of his dedication and appartenence to the community.

Yes, B had the choice - but had he really ?

Uhm, yes? I must be missing something here ....

Originally Posted by nagual678

Furthermore, something as grave as a stabbing (I don't know about you but it ranks not that far off from murder which is supposed to "not let be flown" !) seems to be considered completely differently : good game, since A could have known that B would follow the Sharia and that the reprimand would likely be more lenient than what the official law system would have given him.

People could, in certain cases, choose to do something they would have not done otherwise as the eventual "comeback" would have been too strong.

So, are you arguing against someone's right not to prosecute? Or is settling out of court only a bad thing if it's setteld according to Sharia?

At any rate, all this is but secondary and relative to the main problem, which is two different state of rights "coexisting" in the same country, read above posts for more about that.

And what two states would these be? *Everyone* has the same rights to prosecute or not in the usual courts. *Everyone* has the right to settle out of court if both parties are amenable, in whatever fashion they find mutually agreeable. Why is it such a problem if some people choose to settle things between them according to Sharia?

Originally Posted by nagual678

This is now one more thing that puts distance between a minority and a country. You can't possibly invoke that they are discrimined against or put at large from life as an english citizen in every sense of the term as they are doing this to themselves. What now makes them english citizens ? What is left ? They now are living in what is in essence a distinct and different virtual state by refusing more and more to embrace their citizenship ! What good can [possibly] come out of this ?

Under these conditions, not prosecuting becomes an exploit of this particular liberty and not a "reasonable" use.

Oh, so it is only a problem if people choose to settle their grievences according to some religious rules. Anything else is fine. Why didn't you say so?

[o_backstaber]

Originally Posted by ekiM

What? I don't even know who you are.. I can't recall ever responding to one of your posts before.

Really? I don't know now, I remember someone always having smack-ass comments about my posts all the time. I might be getting you confused with someone ...

[o_ivaqual]

Originally Posted by ekiM

Uhm, yes? I must be missing something here ....



So, are you arguing against someone's right not to prosecute? Or is settling out of court only a bad thing if it's setteld according to Sharia?



And what two states would these be? *Everyone* has the same rights to prosecute or not in the usual courts. *Everyone* has the right to settle out of court if both parties are amenable, in whatever fashion they find mutually agreeable. Why is it such a problem if some people choose to settle things between them according to Sharia?



Oh, so it is only a problem if people choose to settle their grievences according to some religious rules. Anything else is fine. Why didn't you say so?

Try answering without being a smartass and snideful and I'll take your comments into consideration, that is if you really want to discuss since you seem to not understand or deliberatly misunderstand my posts. Besides, nothing happening is wrong in the legal or moral sense of the word, it's just at it's a giant mindfucking perverse effect.

[o_the russian]

Originally Posted by uBeR

It said some crime are taken to (English) court regardless if the victim wants to press charges or not (e.g. rape or murder).

The Sharia law, from what I have interpreted, is not binding. That is, they defendants do not have to physically oblige to the Sharia courts, because it is all voluntary. I believe, and from my interpretation of the article, that these perpetrators go to the courts so as not to bring shame on to their families or themselves.

I look at it along the lines of a slippery slope... if they can enforce a divorce, and handle a case of a stabbing... these courts, like all courts, will seek more jurisdiction and influence. Mybe not levied against christians, but their own community... and soon not just somali, but islamic, that if not by the spreading of the power of this court, then by allowing the vision of a legitimised and unchallenged ethnic-religious court to one minority, to encourage the rest.

IMHO, I see this as giving rise to the possibility of this courts evolution into resembling a theocratic mafia, with a monopoly on legality instead of illegality.

[o_ekim]

Originally Posted by nagual678

Try answering without being a smartass and snideful and I'll take your comments into consideration, that is if you really want to discuss since you seem to not understand or deliberatly misunderstand my posts. Besides, nothing happening is wrong in the legal or moral sense of the word, it's just at it's a giant mindfucking perverse effect.

I want to understand what your point *is* but you don't seem to actually want to elucidate it. If there's nothing wrong either legally or ethically what is your beef, exactly?

Originally Posted by The Russian

I look at it along the lines of a slippery slope... if they can enforce a divorce

They can grant a divorce under *religious* law. This doesn't, or shouldn't, affects civil proceedings anymore than getting any other religious commitment anulled would.

Originally Posted by The Russian

, and handle a case of a stabbing... these courts, like all courts, will seek more jurisdiction and influence.

Do you have any evidence of that beyond assertion?

Originally Posted by The Russian

Mybe not levied against christians,

*Snort*. Yeah, everyone is a Muslim or a Christian

but their own community... and soon not just somali, but islamic, that if not by the spreading of the power of this court, then by allowing the vision of a legitimised and unchallenged ethnic-religious court to one minority, to encourage the rest.

IMHO, I see this as giving rise to the possibility of this courts evolution into resembling a theocratic mafia, with a monopoly on legality instead of illegality.

Fantasy, quite frankly. There isn't a monolithic "Sharia court". There are lots of smaller ones which cater to the inhabitants of some particular community and tradition by deciding what an appropriate punishment is to try and convince someone to mend their ways. All of them are attended voluntarily, all judgements are followed voluntarily - they don't even *have* a jurisdiction. And none of this is in any way infringing on what the British legal system does.

[o_nezumi]

I think what Nagual is trying to say is that it's not a moral or ethical problem, but a social problem that certain people don't identify themselves as citizens of a nation they are actually legally citezens of.

[o_ivaqual]

Originally Posted by Nezumi

I think what Nagual is trying to say is that it's not a moral or ethical problem, but a social problem that certain people don't identify themselves as citizens of a nation they are actually legally citezens of.

Obviously this leaves out some other elements, but in a nutshell this is pretty much the essence of what I was saying.

The Russian's post describes a likely scenario, it's not because it's conjectural that it is automatically invalidated or moot.

I don't think it's a secret that putting "snorts" in your argumentation (and other things) makes you come off as a snideful, agressive and superior-to-all internet though guy. If anything, it doesn't help your points at all (except showing that you are absolutely sure of what you are saying and won't accept another view ? Think for a second there.)

More good arguments, less (especially negative) rethoric.

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

Seems to me that Sharia law in countries that do not have it as a part of their legal structure will only deepen the divide between peoples and will do nothing to help the anti-Muslim sentiments that some people have.

[o_uber]

That's because they're intolerant. As I've seen it, Europe is growing more and more intolerant towards Muslims (Holland to England to Norway). Not going to discuss whether it's good or bad, just that's happening. Perhaps is sending a message to them that they're culture/views/ideas are not welcome and spurs change, or it creates a bigger division amongst the people.

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

I don't think that the growing intolerance is growing in a vacuum. I believe you're going to find that there are some sound and some unsound reasons for it. Personally, I don't like seeing the spread of Sharia Law and I don't think it bodes well for peace and civilization as a whole.

[o_the russian]

so, how exactly does one convince that the muslim cluture's policy of intollerance and voluntary apartheid is not acceptable in the country that the muslims have moved to, without becoming intollerant oneself?

[o_yomamashouse]

I think settling things out of court is a good idea. The Native Americans have a system like that in Canada (and i would guess the US) not too different from this. I know that some people cant get past the fact that it is a Middle Eastern system but I think it is a good idea. Free up some of the clogging in the court systems for one thing. I know one thing for certain is that the Natives' system is more effective at rehabilitating as opposed to straight up punishing. Fixing is far better than just stashing someone away for several decades.

Fantasy, quite frankly. There isn't a monolithic "Sharia court". There are lots of smaller ones which cater to the inhabitants of some particular community and tradition by deciding what an appropriate punishment is to try and convince someone to mend their ways. All of them are attended voluntarily, all judgements are followed voluntarily - they don't even *have* a jurisdiction. And none of this is in any way infringing on what the British legal system does.

I dont know man, this definitely sounds like another terrorist attempt at stealing people's freedom. We all know how determined the Middle Easterners are to steal our freedom, especially the people in the US.

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

Why do you try to insult people you disagree with by showing disdain for their opinions? You assume that their objection is because it's "middle eastern". Rather than standing on assumption why don't you ask them?

As far as settling out of court are you referring to ADR or Alternative Dispute Resolution? Yes, we've had that for decades but it is for the world of civil law and not criminal. I do not believe that any alternative method has any business supplanting the criminal justice system. With the example of the stabbing provided earlier I do not believe that Sharia Law should have been allowed to hear that case instead of the criminal law of the land. But, as with most things, there's probably more to the story as well.

[Circuitous]

Wherein the criminal law of the land is, if they don't wish to prosecute and instead settle it out of the court, that's acceptable under most circumstances.

[o_yomamashouse]

I can agree that under some circumstances like a horrendously violent crime it would be necessary to use the standard criminal law because it is more than just recompense for the victim. It is about a danger towards society in general being stopped.

[Circuitous]

Originally Posted by YoMamasHouse

I can agree that under some circumstances like a horrendously violent crime it would be necessary to use the standard criminal law because it is more than just recompense for the victim. It is about a danger towards society in general being stopped.

For example, rape and murder. Which was pointed out in the article.