It’s been nice knowing you.  You lasted a helluva long time and you did a great job fighting off the Nazi fascists last century.  Too bad you didn’t put up even half as much of a fight against the Islamic fascists of this century.  They didn’t so much defeat you, as you committed suicide by caving in to them.

Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain, says UK’s top judge

Too bad the idiotic judge didn’t see this.

Although he limited this statement to disputes between Moslems, I believe it’s still destructive to the British society to allow different laws to apply to different groups.  First, it degrades many people (women) who would normally be protected.  Second, this seems to lead to separate sets of laws for every group, religious, ethnic, national, etc.  Third, once all of these different legal structures are in place, what happens when members of two groups have a disagreement?  Which set of laws apply, and is there any justification for assuming that standard British law should be the over-riding system?

This concept, if adopted, opens an oil tanker full of worms.  Totally insane.

Occam

Hitler spelled out his plans before the war; it’s just that no one believed him before it was too late.  It would have behooved Britain (and the whole world) to listen to the Islamic fascists:

But too many people are whistling past the graveyard.  I don’t see how Europe can survive.

I agree, it is totally insane. But as far as I understand, the judge didn’t rule it, he said it in a casual meeting in a mosque. I hope we cannot convince the other judges and as far it doens’t happen, I think it is too early to establish the fall of GB. I think (and hope) there are still reasonable people there and they are the majority.

His judge says: “Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law”. I think that one of the most basic laws of the western society is that an agreement should be signed by free persons in order to be valid. so I understand he is thinking in persons who agree freely. How can he thinks that a woman entering into a contractual agreement which states that she is willing to obey the Sharia law is free to choose? And a child? where in those case the fundamental component of freedom to make those agreements valid?

Or even worst, the judge thinks that the use of coercion doens’t invalid an agreement?

Rocinante - 03 July 2008 03:52 PM

It’s been nice knowing you.  You lasted a helluva long time and you did a great job fighting off the Nazi fascists last century.  Too bad you didn’t put up even half as much of a fight against the Islamic fascists of this century.  They didn’t so much defeat you, as you committed suicide by caving in to them.

Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain, says UK’s top judge

Too bad the idiotic judge didn’t see this.

He declared: ‘Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.’

I see nothing wrong with this, as long as the contract or any action that results from the breaking of it, is allowable within existing English Law.

Stephen

Occam - 03 July 2008 04:11 PM

Although he limited this statement to disputes between Moslems, I believe it’s still destructive to the British society to allow different laws to apply to different groups.  First, it degrades many people (women) who would normally be protected.  Second, this seems to lead to separate sets of laws for every group, religious, ethnic, national, etc.  Third, once all of these different legal structures are in place, what happens when members of two groups have a disagreement?  Which set of laws apply, and is there any justification for assuming that standard British law should be the over-riding system?

This concept, if adopted, opens an oil tanker full of worms.  Totally insane.

Occam

Hi Occam,

Well I could be mistaken in which case I’ll come back and say so. But as far as I see nobody is talking about different legal structures.

It’s like a shop giving a particular warranty as part of their contract with the customer.

It’s not part of English law but English law does not prevent them from doing so, if they wish.

Any one who enters into the agreement is still protected by English Law.

I think the Judge is telling it how it already is, not talking about changing anything.

Stephen

IMHO, this judge and Rowen Williams have lost their minds.  I think this will be something they will end up regretting.  Britian will not be the same and women will be living in hell.  Sharia doesn’t give women many rights, if any.  Basically, I am seconding what Occam said and then some.  They really need to have only one set of laws, which are humane and just for all.

StephenLawrence - 03 July 2008 11:27 PM

He declared: ‘Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.’

The flaw with this is that women don’t have any rights in Islam.  So a male Muslim can enter into an “agreement” that his “property” (i.e. his wife) is to do anything he demands she do.

StephenLawrence - 03 July 2008 11:27 PM

I see nothing wrong with this, as long as the contract or any action that results from the breaking of it, is allowable within existing English Law.

It’s incremental.  Rome wasn’t built in one day and neither is the new Islamic Caliphate.  The mere fact that this judge even said it should be is just one more step.  The more Western Civilization caves into these 7th Century fascist fanatics, the worse things get for all of us.  And in the name of “diversity” and “political correctness”, otherwise rational people have been falling over themselves just to cave into these lunatics:

British banks are banning piggy banks because they offend members of the Religion of Perpetual Grievances.

A teacher in Norway is not allowed to wear a Star of David because it offends members of the Religion of Perpetual Grievances.

Canada’s largest bookstore bows to the demands of the Religion of Perpetual Grievances and pulls magazines with cartoons of Mohammed.

In the U.S., Borders books does the same thing.

Many U.S. newspapers refused to publish the cartoons.

Then, of course, there were the riots around the world over those cartoons

A British dentist, who just happens to be a member of the Religion of Perpetual Grievances, forced a female patient to wear an Islamic headscarf or he would refuse to treat her.

School children in Amsterdam took a field tip to a Mosque.  At the Mosque the Members of the Religion of Perpetual Grievances called the children dogs since none of them were Muslims. 

Speaking of dogs, in the UK, members of the Religion of Perpetual Grievances were outraged at this “horrendous” picture:

(Apparently members of the Religion of Perpetual Grievances have a grievance against puppy dogs.)

The Muslims demanded the police apologize for the picture.  And the police did apologize!  You want to know what I would do if leaders of the Religion of Perpetual Grievances demanded I apologize for something like that?  For starters, they’d never get their freaking apology.  Secondly, however many times they ask for the apology I would multiply by ten and donate that much money to an Israeli charity that helps members of its military.  And if they kept asking for an apology, I’d find a way to project those Mohammed cartoons onto the surface of the Moon so the whole world could see them! 

All of the above are small by themselves, but added up they make countless nails in the coffin of Western Civilization.  This idiotic judge, bowing to political correctness gone mad, has just provided one more nail in that coffin. 

Oh, but don’t worry!  It could never happen here!   Keep those eyes tightly shut people.  And keep bowing at the alter of “diversity.” Don’t worry, you won’t be at that alter for long.  Perhaps your new overlords will allow you to pick out your own Muslim name.  At least you won’t have to worry about living in a world of piggy banks and puppy dogs.

Rocinante - 04 July 2008 07:07 AM

StephenLawrence - 03 July 2008 11:27 PM

He declared: ‘Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.’

The flaw with this is that women don’t have any rights in Islam.  So a male Muslim can enter into an “agreement” that his “property” (i.e. his wife) is to do anything he demands she do.

I have no idea whether Muslims in general (in the UK) consider the wife to be the mans property, I doubt it but whatever the case is, the woman is free to choose whether to enter the agreement or not.

The Woman is also free to change her mind.

So if at a later date she has a different point of view she has the same rights as every other woman under English Law. (as she does throughout)

The contract cannot be enforced against her wishes and if anybody tries, she has the protection of the law.

If I’m mistaken about these facts then I may well end up agreeing with you but if they are as I’ve stated, I think it would be foolish to intervene.

Stephen

Stephen, do you really think the woman is free to choose?.

What does ‘freedom’ means when the woman was born in a place where all the tools she could ever had to make a living by her own where denied?. When she didn’t have access to a good education?.

I have a sense of freedom and moral responsability, I know that I am free within certain frame, but I think I couldn’t have developed it without certain access to the education. I think that expecting those poor women could ever develop by their owns the concept I’ve red from John Stuart Mill, for instance, is unrealistic.

On the other hands, what about childrens? do they participate in a free agreement with their parents?

Barto - 04 July 2008 11:28 AM

Stephen, do you really think the woman is free to choose?.

Yep

What does ‘freedom’ means when the woman was born in a place where all the tools she could ever had to make a living by her own where denied?. When she didn’t have access to a good education?.

This is specifically about in England, where the woman does not have these tools denied.

I have a sense of freedom and moral responsability, I know that I am free within certain frame, but I think I couldn’t have developed it without certain access to the education. I think that expecting those poor women could ever develop by their owns the concept I’ve red from John Stuart Mill, for instance, is unrealistic.

We are not talking about poor women. We are talking about free British women willingly entering into a contract that they can willingly decide not to honour whenever they wish.

It’s not a contract which can be enforced against their will.

On the other hands, what about childrens? do they participate in a free agreement with their parents?

As free as the agreement I enter into not to break the law. But these two examples are different because the contract can be enforced against the child’s or my will.

Stephen

Only if they are not Muslim women. IF they are Muslim they won’t have freedom.  Not only that, Sharia won’t stay less then the English common system.  It can’t, because their religion IS their society, their government, their way of life.  It encompasses every part of their lives and the overlap as Rowen Williams mentioned is unavoidable and may even consume the English system of law, if not devour it eventually.  There is no freedom of speech or freedom of/from religion under Sharia.

According to the Sharia...women are considered inferior to men, and have fewer rights and responsibilities...A husband has the moral and religious right and duty to beat his wives for disobedience or for perceived misconduct. A woman does not have the right to choose her husband, or her place of residence, to travel freely or have freedom in her choice of clothing. Women have little or no autonomy and are deemed to need the protection of their fathers, husbands or other male relatives throughout their lives. Any conduct that undermines the idea of male supremacy will fall foul of the Sharia.

Source.

In the west, in countries that have a sizable Muslim population, there have been calls for the Sharia to be adopted for the Muslim community. These calls should be vigorously opposed; the Sharia conflicts with many basic human values, such as equality before the law, that punishments should be commensurate with the crime...The principles of the Sharia are inimical to moral progress, humanity and civilized values.

Source.

To paraphrase Diderot: “Men will never be free until the last sheik is strangled with the entrails of the last imam.”

As for the cartoons about Mohammed, the problem is not too many cartoons and jokes, the problem is too few. Create a million cartoons and let the silly buggers wear themselves out whining.

However the root of all of this, including the frantic posturing of the Xtian ‘evangelicals’, is that religion is a dying force. Faced with this, the religion of ‘submission’ has become extremely violent but will die out none the less. So will all of the other religions. What you are witnessing is not a revival of religions but their death throes.

Britain should treat Islam the way a big dog treats a small dog - with amused indifference, no matter how hard it yaps. I suspect that Britain will do fine - as it has for a long time. I am not so sanguine about the USA and its current rejection of intelligence and knowledge. I have the feeling that it is circling the drain.

The other problem, besides too few cartoons, is religion’s built in resistance to doubt and questioning.  With Xianity, it is fear and guilt that leaves on trapped, but Islam goes further by not allowing people to criticize it, question it, or anything else.  It’s hold is much tighter than any other religion, because of these characteristics.

Mriana - 05 July 2008 12:15 AM

It encompasses every part of their lives and the overlap as Rowen Williams mentioned is unavoidable and may even consume the English system of law, if not devour it eventually.  There is no freedom of speech or freedom of/from religion under Sharia.

It has nothing to do with English Law as far as I can see, there are no changes being advocated in English Law to accomodate Sharia law.

What I believe the judge was saying is that people can enter into contracts of their choosing, as long as the contracts don’t break English law and are not enforced by methods that break English law.

If that is the case, then the approach is sensible and it would be wrong to try to stop people doing this.

If on the other hand if I’ve misread the situation, then I’m wrong. 

Stephen