Trump Says Europe Is ‘Losing’ Its Culture Because Of Immigration

[MayhemMonkey]

They don't have to if the law of the land is unaware of what's happening.

https://fullfact.org/law/uks-sharia-courts/

The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal is an example of this approach. It appoints one qualified lawyer and one expert in Islamic law to each case. In this way, it tries to ensure that the decision reached is in line with both secular and religious law.

So if both parties agree, arbitral tribunals can decide certain issues by applying religious principles.

This doesn't make them courts as such. Their legal authority comes from being voluntarily chosen as a decision-maker, and they can't make any decisions that are contrary to national law.

 

[Reefer1]

https://fullfact.org/law/uks-sharia-courts/

And here we have typical leftist chump defending shaira.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

And here we have typical leftist chump defending shaira.

in what way am I defending it? Im explaining it exists and its not "sharia law" ya utter fuck-knuckle

 

[The ScorpioN]

https://fullfact.org/law/uks-sharia-courts/

Voluntary chosen as decision maker.

Do you think women in Islam can voluntarily choose whether to divorce in a sharia court or in a British secular court? No ramifications from her community?

It's a parallel legal system, it's not necessary if you're living in a secular society under secular rule of law. This is not at all conducive to assimilation.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

Voluntary chosen as decision maker.

Do you think women in Islam can voluntarily choose whether to divorce in a sharia court or in a British secular court? No ramifications from her community?

It's a parallel legal system, it's not necessary if you're living in a secular society under secular rule of law. This is not at all conducive to assimilation.

they have them in america, jews have their rabbinical courts as well. Why does only the islamic version draw your ire?

 

[The ScorpioN]

they have them in america, jews have their rabbinical courts as well. Why does only the islamic version draw your ire?

What's with the whataboutism? The topic was sharia courts in the UK.

Instead of addressing what I said, you immediately deflect and play hide the ball with your argument.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...FG_Report_into_Sharia_Law_in_the_UK_PRINT.pdf

pg. 16. Bad practices, just as I suspended, women get the short end of the stick.

You're not against a fairy tale based parallel legal system in a country with secular rule of law for all?

For the record, I'd be against jewish, hindu, pagan, muslim, catholic, etc legal systems.

 

[panamaican]

What's with the whataboutism? The topic was sharia courts in the UK.

Instead of addressing what I said, you immediately deflect and play hide the ball with your argument.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...FG_Report_into_Sharia_Law_in_the_UK_PRINT.pdf

pg. 16. Bad practices, just as I suspended, women get the short end of the stick.

You're not against a fairy tale based parallel legal system in a country with secular rule of law for all?

For the record, I'd be against jewish, hindu, pagan, muslim, catholic, etc legal systems.

That's a strange argument to make with this link.

First, pg 15 - Good practices. Obviously the report sees good things along with the bad, why disregard half of the information?

Also, your link has an entire section on the Jewish courts in the UK. If they're not relevant...why are they referenced in that report?

Muslims are not unique in creating groups and organisations that provide guidance and decision making according to religious law. Two similar groups are the Jewish Beth Din and the Roman Catholic tribunals. The review panel have spoken to representatives of these groups to get an understanding of how they function, their processes and any lessons that can be learned, or imparted, when considering the application of sharia law by sharia councils.

It's not "whataboutism" when they're actually being consulted within the country for doing the same thing.

 

[IReallyDoTrainUFC]

Since Christianity has waned in Europe, Islam has filled the void.

 

[The ScorpioN]

That's a strange argument to make with this link.

First, pg 15 - Good practices. Obviously the report sees good things along with the bad, why disregard half of the information?

Also, your link has an entire section on the Jewish courts in the UK. If they're not relevant...why are they referenced in that report?



It's not "whataboutism" when they're actually being consulted within the country for doing the same thing.

I don't see people claiming there isn't jewish courts. The topic was sharia courts.

Not strange at all. Read the good practices. Does that sounds like something a secular court can't handle?

Do you agree with having religious parallel legal system in a secular society?

 

[indo80]

religion and politics should not mix....the same secular law should apply to everyone......i dont know what europeans are thinking if they are allowing this as it will make it easier for people to stay segregated.

Furthermore, sharia laws are not going to affect your average educated muslim women but will certainly harm the weakest women who will be pressured to choose sharia law vs common law.

 

[panamaican]

I don't see people claiming there isn't jewish courts. The topic was sharia courts.

Not strange at all. Read the good practices. Does that sounds like something a secular court can't handle?

Do you agree with having religious parallel legal system in a secular society?

The topic was sharia courts, he referenced Jewish courts and you called it "whataboutism". Which doesn't make sense if your link, which is specifically about sharia courts, also references Jewish courts. Your report thinks Jewish courts are relevant to their study of Sharia courts, yet you are claiming otherwise. That is what doesn't make sense...since it's your link that contradicts you.

And religious courts aren't parallel legal systems. They're basically voluntary arbitration systems operating under very specific rule sets and the rulings are just glorified contractual agreements. More importantly, like any arbitration system, their rulings are not enforceable if they violate state law or national law.

People don't have to like them but saying that they shouldn't exist basically means that you're saying people can't come together to privately settle disputes by their own standards.

 

[The ScorpioN]

The topic was sharia courts, he referenced Jewish courts and you called it "whataboutism". Which doesn't make sense if your link, which is specifically about sharia courts, also references Jewish courts. Your report thinks Jewish courts are relevant to their study of Sharia courts, yet you are claiming otherwise. That is what doesn't make sense...since it's your link that contradicts you.

And religious courts aren't parallel legal systems. They're basically voluntary arbitration systems operating under very specific rule sets and the rulings are just glorified contractual agreements. More importantly, like any arbitration system, their rulings are not enforceable if they violate state law or national law.

People don't have to like them but saying that they shouldn't exist basically means that you're saying people can't come together to privately settle disputes by their own standards.

Did you read the conversation? He said there aren't any sharia courts in the UK. That was false. Nothing to do with jews, even if they're linked in the report. Stop deflecting to jews. I'll say it again, I'm against both, but right now in this context we're talking sharia courts. If you want to talk about jewish courts, go ahead.

Then he said what you just said - "voluntary" arbitration. How voluntary do you think it is for a woman living in a Muslim enclave?

- inappropriate and unnecessary questioning in regards to personal relationship matters
- a forced marriage victim was asked to attend the sharia council at the same time as her family (seems voluntary)
- women being invited to make concessions to their husbands in order to secure a divorce (men are never asked to make these concessions). For example in khula agreements, husbands may demand excessive financial concessions from the wife (also must be voluntary)
- no safeguarding policies and/or the recognition for the need of safeguarding policies

As to them being able to privately settle disputes, and not being enforceable take a look at this

- adopting civil legal terms inappropriately, leading to confusion for applicants over the legality of council decisions
- panel members sitting on sharia councils who have only recently moved to the UK, and who do not have the required language skills and/or wider understanding of UK society

It may not be enforceable on paper, but in the parallel Muslim society they're living in, it's the only thing that matters.

This voluntary arbitration is obvious coercion. Like a pimp giving his hooker a voluntary choice to either go suck dick or get a beating.

Britain already has massive trouble with Muslims not assimilating, running these kangaroo courts is ridiculous.

 

[panamaican]

Did you read the conversation? He said there aren't any sharia courts in the UK. That was false. Nothing to do with jews, even if they're linked in the report. Stop deflecting to jews. I'll say it again, I'm against both, but right now in this context we're talking sharia courts. If you want to talk about jewish courts, go ahead.

There aren't any sharia courts in the UK. A voluntary dispute resolution system isn't a court. Even your report calls them councils and gets into pretty good detail about the subject, including people mistakenly calling them "courts".

Then he said what you just said - "voluntary" arbitration. How voluntary do you think it is for a woman living in a Muslim enclave?



As to them being able to privately settle disputes, and not being enforceable take a look at this



It may not be enforceable on paper, but in the parallel Muslim society they're living in, it's the only thing that matters.

This voluntary arbitration is obvious coercion. Like a pimp giving his hooker a voluntary choice to either go suck dick or get a beating.

Britain already has massive trouble with Muslims not assimilating, running these kangaroo courts is ridiculous.

It's obvious coercion the same way the arbitration clause in this website is coercion. No one is saying it's a perfect situation. Obviously it's not. Neither are the results of arbitration clauses in more corporate contracts.

But it's not undermining or overruling secular law. Which is the alleged point of concern.

 

[The ScorpioN]

There aren't any sharia courts in the UK. A voluntary dispute resolution system isn't a court. Even your report calls them councils and gets into pretty good detail about the subject, including people mistakenly calling them "courts".




It's obvious coercion the same way the arbitration clause in this website is coercion. No one is saying it's a perfect situation. Obviously it's not. Neither are the results of arbitration clauses in more corporate contracts.

But it's not undermining or overruling secular law. Which is the alleged point of concern.

The quibbling about terminology is the same as the nonsense about no go zones. Yes they’re not literally no go zones, as you can walk through them and emergency services will go there if serious emergency arises, but it turns into a dangerous ethnic enclave separate from the mainstream society.

Same with these courts, or councils or committees or whatever term you want to use. They do undermine secular law seeing as women get coerced into unfair arbitration based on one of the worst religions currently practiced decided by people who apparently oftentimes don’t even speak the language, much less know UK law.

My view is that that’s unacceptable in a secular society with court system already established. Muslims have serious problems assimilating as it is, separate arbitration committees further separate them from the host society.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

What's with the whataboutism? The topic was sharia courts in the UK.

Instead of addressing what I said, you immediately deflect and play hide the ball with your argument.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...FG_Report_into_Sharia_Law_in_the_UK_PRINT.pdf

pg. 16. Bad practices, just as I suspended, women get the short end of the stick.

You're not against a fairy tale based parallel legal system in a country with secular rule of law for all?

For the record, I'd be against jewish, hindu, pagan, muslim, catholic, etc legal systems.

I was just saying there are also other religious courts, yet this ones the only one attracting negative attention. You arent adding anything relevant. Either you allow all religious courts or dont allow any