Now Muslims Get Their Own Laws In Britian
MUSLIM radicals have established their own draconian court systems in Britain.2. Comment #36566 by PeterK on May 1, 2007 at 3:19 pm
"..behold... beginning of the end of western civilization, and no one even seems to care..."3. Comment #36570 by cagliost on May 1, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Private courts like these are legal. A similar things is "Judge Judy" in the US. Both parties agree that their complaint will be heard by a private judge, and agree to abide by the decision (indeed, are legally bound to (with Judge Judy, damages are limited to $5000)).4. Comment #36573 by Ivan The Not So Bad on May 1, 2007 at 3:35 pm
5. Comment #36574 by jorgepolak on May 1, 2007 at 3:37 pm
"Remember, both parties must agree to go to a private court..."6. Comment #36579 by weavehole on May 1, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Well, it seems to me she lived her life like a candle in the wind. Oh sorry, different Express article... this one seems more fueled by racism than rationalism. File under I for Ignore, everyone else will. Erm, 'cept possibly BNP.7. Comment #36583 by Roll on May 1, 2007 at 4:14 pm
"Ever since I arrived here in the 1960s there has been a case of women being forced to get married, others forced to get married, but unhappy afterwards. Until now there was no organisation which could Islamically solve their problems."8. Comment #36587 by BaronOchs on May 1, 2007 at 4:36 pm
9. Comment #36589 by BaronOchs on May 1, 2007 at 4:42 pm
10. Comment #36590 by vertigo25 on May 1, 2007 at 4:43 pm
11. Comment #36601 by Ohnhai on May 1, 2007 at 5:42 pm
12. Comment #36603 by Ohnhai on May 1, 2007 at 5:47 pm
13. Comment #36606 by anotherclinton on May 1, 2007 at 5:59 pm
14. Comment #36617 by EriolTolkien on May 1, 2007 at 6:38 pm
15. Comment #36622 by v4ri4bl3 on May 1, 2007 at 7:09 pm
I don't really respect this article much either. It sounds like nothing more than hearsay. Without an actual look at the practices going on it's impossible to determine if it is acceptable practice or not. This whole thing sounds like someone shouting "THEY ARE DOING A BUNCH OF WEIRD STUFF BEHIND CLOSED DOORS!!!"16. Comment #36628 by Russell Blackford on May 1, 2007 at 7:31 pm
The article is too sensationalist and short on substance for me to draw any conclusions one way or the other. I'd hate to see this system of courts get any official recognition. However, if it's all really little more than a system of voluntary private conciliation and arbitration, with the outcomes subject to the oversight of the ordinary court system, it might not be bad; it might even do some good, depending on all the details.17. Comment #36638 by h2g2bob on May 1, 2007 at 9:16 pm
@Ivan The Not So Bad18. Comment #36649 by oskorei on May 1, 2007 at 11:33 pm
19. Comment #36651 by MartinSGill on May 2, 2007 at 12:08 am
20. Comment #36652 by MartinSGill on May 2, 2007 at 12:21 am
21. Comment #36654 by ktillyer on May 2, 2007 at 12:36 am
22. Comment #36656 by AdrianT on May 2, 2007 at 12:50 am
23. Comment #36659 by Bonzai on May 2, 2007 at 1:06 am
While on paper people only go to these courts on a voluntary basis but in practice many women would be pressured into it. You probably know there was a compaign to allow Sharia in family arbitrations in Ontario, Canada. Even before it was successful some imams already said that muslims who didn't chose Sharia when that option was availiable should be considered apostates. Thankfully the move was defeated as a result of an impressive counter compaign led by moderate muslims. The government announced a catagorical ban of *all* religious arbitrations. It was a victory for secularism. I think perhaps the U.K should consider doing the same.24. Comment #36660 by gcdavis on May 2, 2007 at 1:06 am
25. Comment #36662 by Bonzai on May 2, 2007 at 1:16 am
I don't think multiculturalism per se is the problem. In the U.K (and Europe in general) you don't really have multicultralism but what Amartya Sen called "plual monocultutralism" which is an adapatation of the colonial technique to manage the immigrant population.26. Comment #36664 by gcdavis on May 2, 2007 at 1:27 am
27. Comment #36665 by Russell Blackford on May 2, 2007 at 1:28 am
If it's a voluntary private arbitration system, I don't see how it can be stopped, any more than you could stop two people in a commercial dispute from agreeing to abide by the opinion of the local imam, or the local vicar, or a stray barrister, or someone from the chamber of commerce. There are already numerous alternative dispute resolution arrangements going on outside of the real legal system, and this is usually thought of as a good thing to take pressure of the courts, deliver a less formal and expensive venue, etc., etc. We may not much like it being done in this particular context, associated with notoriously patriarchal religious authorities, but I don't see how we can consistently stop them, and only them, from setting up a system of unofficial alternative dispute resolution.28. Comment #36668 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 2, 2007 at 1:31 am
I'm having trouble believing these comments.29. Comment #36671 by A Norwegian on May 2, 2007 at 1:37 am
The Britts have finally lost it.30. Comment #36676 by Bonzai on May 2, 2007 at 1:55 am
Russell Blackford wrote:31. Comment #36678 by Peacebeuponme on May 2, 2007 at 1:59 am
ktillyer: Sorry to be a pedant. check out http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/pluckyew.htm32. Comment #36679 by aleprechaunist on May 2, 2007 at 2:03 am
As long as the UK legal system trumps any attempts to intitiate full-blown sharia activities, I don't see the relevance of this article.33. Comment #36684 by gcdavis on May 2, 2007 at 2:41 am
34. Comment #36685 by Absinthius on May 2, 2007 at 2:51 am
35. Comment #36687 by Bonzai on May 2, 2007 at 2:53 am
gcdavis,36. Comment #36689 by sheepscarer on May 2, 2007 at 2:56 am
37. Comment #36690 by Luthien on May 2, 2007 at 3:01 am
Non-Muslims are excluded from the secretive court which is registered as a charity to receive British tax benefits.
38. Comment #36694 by Bob Russell on May 2, 2007 at 3:13 am
I do not see any women in the above photo. All I see is chattel. Slaves to religious ignorance.39. Comment #36696 by mr-zero on May 2, 2007 at 3:16 am
40. Comment #36698 by Bonzai on May 2, 2007 at 3:22 am
The newspaper maybe crappy but this is not the first time you hear about some muslims pushing for Sharia in the U.K. It has been covered by other news outlets like the bbc and the guardian for at least several years.41. Comment #36700 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 2, 2007 at 3:28 am
42. Comment #36704 by deejay on May 2, 2007 at 3:48 am
After observing two 'legal' systems operating in Australia , the national system and indigenous traditional law it is not successful and a nightmare when trying to apply the law of the land .Dreadful crimes are given minimum penalties in the case of indigenous offenders and for a similar offence quite severe penalties are handed down in the general community. It's another version of the old cry ,'one law for the rich and another for the none rich,'It simply doesn't work but in the case of UK it is beyond the point of no return so get used to it.43. Comment #36715 by stephenray on May 2, 2007 at 4:46 am
It's nonsense.44. Comment #36718 by Hewhoisknowastim on May 2, 2007 at 4:51 am
This can't be all that bad. I am reminded of a Rumpole episode where he defends a C of E Reverend in a church court. Though truthfully I can't imagine what Rumpole would make of Muslim sharia law.45. Comment #36723 by dancingthemantaray on May 2, 2007 at 5:12 am
ARRGGHHH I DON'T KNOW IF WHOEVER PUT THIS UP HERE IS BRITISH OR NOT BUT SERIOUSLY, THIS IS FROM THE DAILY EXPRESS- BRITISH TABLOID CRAP, DON'T BELIEVE IT!46. Comment #36729 by Russell Blackford on May 2, 2007 at 5:37 am
Bonzai, you say you disagree with me ... but I'm genuinely puzzled, because cannot see a single point that you make that disagrees with what I said in my post. Well, except perhaps the last sentence of your first para, which is, with all respect (as you know, I like your contributions), a non sequitur.47. Comment #36733 by bamboospitfire on May 2, 2007 at 5:43 am
48. Comment #36738 by mrjonno on May 2, 2007 at 5:56 am
Usual sensational trash49. Comment #36739 by Peacebeuponme on May 2, 2007 at 6:03 am
The express should also report on the sinister practice of footballers dealing with their cultural issues through the "FA tribunal"50. Comment #36742 by genius2687 on May 2, 2007 at 6:11 am
Wow, and the same happens in the rest of Europe.This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
1. Comment #36564 by 42nd on May 1, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Other Comments by 42nd