Post by: Manedwolf on September 15, 2008, 12:39:02 PM
As someone living there said, it's a good thing Brittania will not be on the new coins. She'd not want to see where the country is going.
What happened to the little bit they wrote in the 1600's? You know..."...that noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme..."
And SS, don't bother. Yes, it's an "option", I see that. It won't be an "option" for the
Quote
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 networks headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.
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.
Siddiqi said: We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.
The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future seems unavoidable in Britain.
In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.
In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.
It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.
Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of smaller criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases, said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.
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.
Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a parallel legal system based on sharia for some British Muslims.
Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.
Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: I think its appalling. I dont think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.
There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.
Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.
The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.
In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.
In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.
Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.
Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.
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 networks headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.
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.
Siddiqi said: We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.
The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future seems unavoidable in Britain.
In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.
In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.
It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.
Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of smaller criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases, said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.
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.
Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a parallel legal system based on sharia for some British Muslims.
Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.
Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: I think its appalling. I dont think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.
There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.
Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.
The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.
In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.
In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.
Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.
Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece
Post by: Bigjake on September 15, 2008, 12:43:45 PM
Post by: Iain on September 15, 2008, 12:44:52 PM
Been done before, and nothing new will get said. The usual snide lamentations, the usual attempts at mockery (bigjake is already here) and the usual pointing out that...
Quote
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.
...this has been going on for a very long time. Like aspects of Jewish law, aspects of sharia, only pertaining to civil disputes, will fall under the overall jurisdiction of British law - where all parties consent - and will be binding as long as the decisions are lawful, under British law. The Jews have them already, the Mormons, Sikhs, atheists, lawn-mower admirers could all do the same.
This is not the 'end of a civilisation' you are looking for.
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on September 15, 2008, 12:46:18 PM
Sharia aside, I see nothing wrong with the idea of private contractual agreements to arbitrate differences. Both parties must agree to Sharia arbitration or else it's off the table.
Don't like it?
Then don't agree to Sharia arbitration.
That way, the IRB's in England can't go and kidnap their (attempting to become) ex-wives, drag them to Sharia divorce court, perform a court sanctioned genital mutilation and then stone her to death in the public square. At least not without her consent. Seriously... if you're married to a devout muslim IRB-type and want a divorce suddenly, you're not gonna agree to Sharia arbitration if you have a brain cell at all.
It's a voluntary way to deal with small issues, IMO. The jooz have been doing it as well. And non-denominational arbitration too.
Post by: Bigjake on September 15, 2008, 12:47:18 PM
I'm really not rooting for GB to fall (far from it), but it's like a train wreck you just can't help but watch.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 15, 2008, 12:48:12 PM
I'm sure Muslim women will be treated fairly by Sharia courts when their families drag them into them.
I'm sure. And this will so help with assimilation into British culture.
Post by: Iain on September 15, 2008, 12:51:44 PM
Reports of the death of British law are looking somewhat premature are they not? After a mere five posts or so. Apart from those unasimilated Jews of course.
Post by: freedom lover on September 15, 2008, 12:54:22 PM
England may someday be a fundamenatalist Islamic state.
You all know what those look like.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 15, 2008, 12:58:04 PM
All have recourse to British law courts and all decisions of arbitration courts would have to be legal under British law or else they are not enforceable.
Reports of the death of British law are looking somewhat premature are they not? After a mere five posts or so. Apart from those unasimilated Jews of course.
Reports of the death of British law are looking somewhat premature are they not? After a mere five posts or so. Apart from those unasimilated Jews of course.
Quote
In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.
In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.
That's justice? Parallel justice, where domestic violence isn't domestic violence if it's okay by your extremist belief that women are chattel?
That is not arbitration! It's superseding British criminal law! In a regular court, they would be in JAIL, would they not?
How is that not undermining British common law? How?
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on September 15, 2008, 01:02:37 PM
Quote
In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.
Those muslim women have the same right to choose to pursue or drop charges as an English woman (or is that Englishwoman?).
Would you deny them that right because they are muslim and just not confident/strong/capable enough to think for themselves in this issue?
Plenty of brainwashed britpunk cockney trash that can't think straight either, methinks.
Until I see a case where arbitration has been conclusively forced, I'm not interested in interfering with 2 parties' capacity to privately conduct binding agreements.
Post by: Jamisjockey on September 15, 2008, 01:29:56 PM
Ye of little faith. Someone will be along shortly to re-educate you on how this is a good thing.
"Someone"......
Actually, if both sides agree to it, and pay for it, and its only in civil cases....I don't see a problem.
I'm all for arbitration of civil cases, outside the normal legal system. Oh, and the loser should always get stuck with ALL costs.
Post by: K Frame on September 15, 2008, 01:48:26 PM
"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."
OH MY GOD! IT'S THE JOOZE! THEY BROUGHT ABOUT THE FALL OF THE EMPIRE! And so forth and so on...
Keep it in perspective, my fine conspiracy panic monkeys.
Post by: Bigjake on September 15, 2008, 05:39:48 PM
Ye of little faith. Someone will be along shortly to re-educate you on how this is a good thing.
"Someone"......
Actually, if both sides agree to it, and pay for it, and its only in civil cases....I don't see a problem.
I'm all for arbitration of civil cases, outside the normal legal system. Oh, and the loser should always get stuck with ALL costs.
I'm with you there, Jamis, but I keep having flashbacks to the local "honor killings" and cartoon/Koran riots. Theo van Gogh anyone?
I'm sure Sharia law works great, among the non-rabid Islamo types. Who seem to be the minority...
Post by: lacoochee on September 15, 2008, 06:03:18 PM
Post by: ArfinGreebly on September 15, 2008, 06:08:20 PM
Pay attention and let's see where this goes.
I don't reckon it'll be all that long before something similar -- or perhaps something more comprehensive -- is proposed here.
Should that happen, it will be well to have an existing case study.
Post by: K Frame on September 15, 2008, 07:58:54 PM
Post by: De Selby on September 15, 2008, 08:10:01 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 16, 2008, 02:55:12 AM
It is a form of arbitrage courts.
This already exists in many countries across Westerndom.
No, this is not a case of OMG THE MUSLIM THREAT.
Yet again, Mike Irwin is right.
Post by: K Frame on September 16, 2008, 05:19:33 AM
I'm getting kind of tired of the pants wetting panic inducing "IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD BECAUSE THE JEWS/MUSLIMS/ETC HAVE DONE THIS!!!" threads...
It's pretty obvious that once the first paragraph was read, the sphincter went into full clench mode and the mind stopped working and nothing else in the story got through.
Did I mention just how tired I am getting of these kinds of chicken little bullshit posts?
Keep that in mind...
As it stands, however, the original premise of this thread was badly skewed, and it's probably not going to get righted again, so...