UK JUDGE: "Sharia law SHOULD be used in Britain"

[Saxman]

Iron,

I think ZetaNine's reaction should be sufficient explanation. Unfortunately, while the LARGEST percentage of the world's population isn't clueless and paranoid, the LOUDEST certainly is.

[ZetaNine]

Iron,

I think ZetaNine's reaction should be sufficient explanation. Unfortunately, while the LARGEST percentage of the world's population isn't clueless and paranoid, the LOUDEST certainly is.

get back to me when young girls are put on trial with no representation in back room sharia "courts" .........

I'm quite sure there will be no problem finding a happy medium between your current laws...and their currents laws....   

10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.
9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.
8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.
7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.
6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.
5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.
4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.
3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.
2. Islam orders apostates to be killed
1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad

[ZetaNine]

edit

[Slamfire]

Slamfire,

The point that our resident sandwich-board-wearing "The End is at Hand" loony friend Zeta is missing or deliberately choosing to ignore, is that's EXACTLY what this decision AFFIRMS. It's not a new law. It's a recognition of the EXISTING LAW that LIKE CHRISTIANS AND JEWS (funny how this detail keeps getting dropped) Muslims have the right to seek arbitration based on their own faith: ONE LAW FOR ALL PEOPLE, that a method of arbitration CANNOT BE DENIED on grounds of faith--ANY faith--so long as both people are in agreement and that the results remain within the confines of English Law. The broken record has been skipping back to the key point of this over and over, and he doesn't seem to be hearing it.

Sorry, but I don't think Christians, Jews or Muslims should have their own laws.  One Law For All.  Love it or leave it, baby.

[AKIron]

I certainly have no problem with a group of people voluntarily adhering to their own set of laws so long as they do not conflict with the laws of their nation/state. Not really different than obeying the rules of your favorite lodge/club. I still wonder why this judge found it necessary to even mention sharia law unless it was to both appease and constrain those participants.

[straffo]

get back to me when young girls are put on trial with no representation in back room sharia "courts" .........

I'm quite sure there will be no problem finding a happy medium between your current laws...and their currents laws....   

10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.
9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.
8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.
7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.
6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.
5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.
4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.
3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.
2. Islam orders apostates to be killed
1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad

Of the ten points ,can you list the ones currently authorized by British law ?

[Nilsen]

I think Zeta has some issues with muslims in geneal. 

[SD67]

Of the ten points ,can you list the ones currently authorized by British law ?

Oh Oh Oh!
5 and 9? But only in Northampton

[Dowding]

I still wonder why this judge found it necessary to even mention sharia law unless it was to both appease and constrain those participants.

His audience were Muslims at a community centre I think. I guess he was trying to reduce the alienation many British Muslims must feel. Like someone said, keep the moderates on side and you reduce the ground the extremists can recruit from.

[SirLoin]

Islamic law states that no female virgin can be executed for a capital offense..So she is ordered raped and then executed.

[Saxman]

Sorry, but I don't think Christians, Jews or Muslims should have their own laws.  One Law For All.  Love it or leave it, baby.

Slamfire,

I'll say this again: THERE IS ONLY ONE LAW. He is only making it clear that this ONE EXISTING LAW--which ALREADY applies to Christians and Jews--goes for Muslims as well, which alarmists like Zeta seem all too happy to take offense to.

[Nashwan]

If it's ok for parties to voluntarily settle matters according to Sharia law so long as none of Britian's laws are violated in the process why was it necessary for this judge to pronounce it ok?

As Dowding said, he was making a speech to a group of Muslims. This wasn't a court ruling.

As to what he actually said, read the Times and you get a totally different impression to the one the Daily Mail and Zeta Nine are presenting:

Britain's most senior judge declared last night that there was no place for Sharia courts in this country and insisted that all residents were governed by the laws of England and Wales.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, told an audience of several hundred at the London Muslim Centre in Whitechapel that those who chose to live in England and Wales had to accept the laws as they found them.

“There is no question of such [Sharia] courts sitting in this country or such sanctions being applied here.

“So far as the law is concerned, those who live in this country are governed by English and Welsh law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts,” he said.
But Lord Phillips, in one of his last speeches before retiring as Lord Chief Justice to become senior law lord in autumn, defended Sharia principles.

A Muslim was free to practise his or her own faith and live his or her life in accordance with those principles, yet not be in conflict with the law.

People's view of Sharia was often coloured by extremists who “invoke it, perversely, to justify terrorist atrocities such as suicide bombing”.

It was not Sharia, but sanctions imposed in some Muslim countries - such as flogging, stoning, cutting off hands, or killing - that would conflict with our laws. “There can be no question of such sanctions being applied to or by any Muslim who lives within this jurisdiction,” he said.

Muslim men and women were entitled to be treated the same way as all others, but there was another side to that coin.

“Those who come to live in this country and benefit from the rights enjoyed by all who live here also necessarily come under the same obligations that the law imposes on all who live here.”

Lord Phillips also used his speech to defend the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, who created a furore in February when he seemed to suggest that Muslims could be governed in respect of some disputes by Sharia.

The comments were made at a lecture that Lord Phillips had chaired. He said that the Archbishop's lecture had been profound and “one not readily understood on a single listening”. He had certainly not suggested that Muslims might be governed by their own system of Sharia. Rather the Archbishop had suggested that it might be possible for individuals to opt to resolve certain disputes under their own choice of jurisdiction.

And it was not “very radical to advocate embracing Sharia in the context of family disputes, for example. Our system already goes a long way towards accommodating the Archbishop's suggestion.” People were free to choose a system of mediation or arbitration for the resolution of their disputes - whether Sharia or any other religious code.

Any sanctions or failure to comply with the agreed terms of any mediation would, however, be drawn from the laws of England and Wales. Divorce could therefore be effected only in accordance with the civil law of this country.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article4265549.ece

Sorry, but I don't think Christians, Jews or Muslims should have their own laws.  One Law For All.

They don't. There is one legal system in England and Wales, and it operates under English law.

Those who, in this country, are in dispute as to their respective rights are free to subject that dispute to the mediation of a chosen person, or to agree that the dispute shall be resolved by a chosen arbitrator or arbitrators. There is no reason why principles of Sharia Law, or any other religious code should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution. It must be recognised, however, that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of the mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales.

From the full text of the speech http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/speeches/lcj_equality_before_the_law_030708.pdf

[SOB]

Really, you British appeasers obviously agree with ZetaNine... the words you've typed read differently, but if one chooses not to read them it's pretty obvious you're on board with what he's saying.

Now, on to an action plan.  Round the Muslims up immediately and put them into concentration camps.  Exterminate them quickly and quietly.  If you don't do this, if you continue to allow them to practice their religion, you're nothing more than appeasers and will be subject to the will of radical Sharia law because it will be adopted as the law of Britain within 3 years.

GIT-R-DONE!

[Dowding]

lol SOB.

However, there is a flaw in your plan. It relies upon a working railway infrastructure with trains that run on time. There is no such thing in Britain.

Back to ze drawing board...

[ZetaNine]

Of the ten points ,can you list the ones currently authorized by British law ?

I find this logic similar to someone hurling a baseball at your head at 95mph and you asking......."can you show me a bruise yet?"