Bye Bye Great Britain

What the F***?!

I'm sure this will work out swimmingly. Nothing promotes assimilation like separate legal systems.

How the mighty have fallen. So sad.

what now if a moslem woman doesn't quite agree w/ the honor killing judgment
against her.

I for one welcome our new islamist overloards. Remember, my name is Kent Brockman.

How stupid can the British government be? This is a disaster in the making. These people should accept that britain abides by the common law and not sharia and if they don't like it, don't immigrate.

So, when is the first stoning of a rape victim on the Trafalgar Square?

re: #4 buzzsawmonkey

Not to downplay the encroachments of Islam in Britain, but that is basically permitting sharia courts to act as binding arbitrators, which is the same thing that is extended to a beit din (Jewish religious court).

Sure but last time I checked Islam was the only hell bent on global domination.

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.

This is horrifying.

Dhimmitain. The sun sets.

I guess Britain's legal system was unacceptable?

re: #9 celtic templar

Sure but last time I checked Islam was the only hell bent on global domination.

exactly, it is only the beginning. why will they stop at civil cts.

re: #4 buzzsawmonkey

Not to downplay the encroachments of Islam in Britain, but that is basically permitting sharia courts to act as binding arbitrators, which is the same thing that is extended to a beit din (Jewish religious court).

In DV cases? In inheritance disputes in which the females are given less than the males?

It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.

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.

Well- that's just lovely! "Mentoring from community elders" meaning they'll be told they can hit their wives, but they're not supposed to leave marks.

I expect this from the English, but the Scottish? Not a good sign.

Total madness.

Meanwhile, in liberal loony world, all eyes are cast on "creationism". Alas, poor Great Britain, I knew ye well.

Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.

Yeah, just in case the husband wasn't able to kill her the first time around, let's give him a second chance.

re: #14 MandyManners

In DV cases? In inheritance disputes in which the females are given less than the males?

Yep- sexist behavior has just been sanctioned by Britain.

I'm all for ADR but, only if both parties are coming from equal places, and only if one side is not forced into it.

Coming soon to an American city near YOU!

re: #12 Racer X

I guess Britain's legal system was unacceptable?

All that equal treatment under law BS isn't in the Quran. That'll never do.

re: #4 buzzsawmonkey

Not to downplay the encroachments of Islam in Britain, but that is basically permitting sharia courts to act as binding arbitrators, which is the same thing that is extended to a beit din (Jewish religious court).

That is the camel's nose. Oh it's just like Beit Din. Until it isn't. Jews accept dina d'malchuta dina ("render unto Caesar") but Muslims don't.

Holy crap.
They just hit that 90° angle on the slippery slope.

re: #6 nyc redneck

what now if a moslem woman doesn't quite agree w/ the honor killing judgment
against her.

Yes. By all means, place women under shar'ia law for cases of Domestic Violence.

My God, the British have capitulated. Marching boldly into the 13th Century.

re: #20 Sharmuta

Yep- sexist behavior has just been sanctioned by Britain.

What are the chances that a Muslim woman will have the guts to refuse Sharia ADR?

I understand the notion of religious courts set up to rule on purely religious matters -- I went before a Bet Din to grant my first wife a Jewish divorce along with our civil divorce.

But requiring civil courts to enforce the rulings of religious courts? Giving religious courts jurisdiction over matters of ordinary civil law, not to mention criminal law?

Time for another clear-headed Dutchman to come over there and lead another Glorious Revolution.

Well, at least it's OK to off a mouse, now.

The Brits that will defend this will be the same shrieking on the importance of separation between church and state.

The same may soon be true here, which is a scary thought indeed.

This is a fucking nightmare.

re: #27 MandyManners

What are the chances that a Muslim woman will have the guts to refuse Sharia ADR?

My guess? Only once.

Maybe they are just giving them enough rope...

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.

It's in the Quran. So is beating their wives.

To borrow an recent English phrase...

"The End is Very F***ing Nigh..."

I'll weep for your passing Britain, but I'll continue to arm myself nonetheless...

/ This is NOT a good sign.

re: #18 Da Coyote

Meanwhile, in liberal loony world, all eyes are cast on "creationism". Alas, poor Great Britain, I knew ye well.

The creationism masquerading as science as pushed by the Disco Instutitue?

The camel attached to that nose has Shari attached. But you'd know that if you really followed the subject.

And yes I'm an evangelical Christian and agree with Charles.

re: #29 buzzsawmonkey

Domestic violence should be a criminal matter. In purely civil matters, however, if the parties choose to submit to binding arbitration, well, they choose to submit.

That's true here too; whether people submit to a private secular arbitrator, a beit din, a sharia court, or Judge Joe Brown, they are the ones choosing to submit to the decision--and if they've agreed to accept the decision of the arbitrator they have both accepted, the arbitrator's decision is backed by the courts.

But, in Islam, women are not equal to begin with so, I expect they will have no say in being forced to submit to this travesty.

This is appalling. As a woman I am absolutely sickened.

There is nothing they can say to justify sharia in a Western nation. Nothing.

re: #29 buzzsawmonkey

But this is being used in criminal matters. It's already screwed over 6 women!

re: #4 buzzsawmonkey

This is true. I once had to work on an a case seeking to enforce a beit din ruling over ownership of an air conditioning unit. The agreement between the parties allowed for recourse to the state court to enforce the decision. If the Sharia courts are acting in this capacity, I'd still be worried though. It would be interesting to see how the rabbinical court decisions are treated by state court jurisdictions as a whole.

Here is a big issue, what if the ruling form the sharia court runs counter to public policy or due process encapsulated in the British BOR (unwritten)? Women are not afforded due process or even evidentiary standing under sharia as they would be in the British or American legal system. Will the courts have the ability to over rule the sharia court decision if it involves such violations of basic legal rights recognized in the west? If not, there is a huge problem afoot.

re: #33 Sharmuta

My guess? Only once.

What can stop this insanity?

Holy cow!

re: #42 MandyManners

What can stop this insanity?

The Brits have to revoke this as a legitimate means to arbitrate.

re: #32 MandyManners

This is a fucking nightmare.

i agree, i feel literally sick to my stomach.

re: #42 MandyManners

What can stop this insanity?

Eternal vigilance and an armed society with buttload of ammo.

re: #40 Sharmuta

But this is being used in criminal matters. It's already screwed over 6 women!

If further violence happens against them, will the police even reopen their investigations?

I'll be able to tell my grand kids that I actually remember when England was part of Western Civilization.

I'll expect them to think I'm just making it up.

re: #48 MandyManners

If further violence happens against them, will the police even reopen their investigations?

How many of those women will be dead?

re: #43 buzzsawmonkey

Understand that I am not arguing for this. I'm merely pointing out that all manner of people are permitted to act as arbitrators--here as well as in Britain. And that their decisions are backed by the regular court system.

The courts are big on this because it lightens their caseload.

In Britain, it lightens it by the weight of HOW MANY DEAD WOMEN?

re: #41 Areopagitica

Will the courts have the ability to over rule the sharia court decision if it involves such violations of basic legal rights recognized in the west? If not, there is a huge problem afoot.

Even if they are, there will still be a huge problem in that the secular court will be intimidated. Can you imagine the first conflict? My bet is that with enough Muslim rioting, the secular court will back down. I'm betting the Muslims would positively relish such a confrontation, knowing that likely result.

That is the danger here. The Muslims know that secular Britain is rolling over and exposing its belly.

Not good.

The British government may be this crazy, but ordinary Britons aren't.

When will they stand up and say "Enough"?

re: #8 PatrioticNaturalizedAmerican

Right after the first beheading for adultery.

No shoes for Brittan they don't deserve them.

I wonder what Mick Jagger would say.

I just cannot comprehend this. Great Britain has told women that they are not equal to men in a court of law.

re: #38 MandyManners

But, in Islam, women are not equal to begin with so, I expect they will have no say in being forced to submit to this travesty.

Not only that, Mandy- they might not even know they can reject this route.

Doesn't the fact that women and men are treated differently in sharia courts nullify any legal legitimacy they could have? Are equal rights protected in Britain or not?

And doesn't British law have the concept of non-bargainable fundamental rights? For instance, in the US you could not contract to become someone's slave because all slavery is forbidden.

Wait until the average bloke is hauled into Sharia court. Judge Muhatemad presiding. Sentence - death by stoning, hanging, amputation, etc...

Will the Brits stand up and boot out these wankers?

re: #56 MandyManners

I just cannot comprehend this. Great Britain has told women that they are not equal to men in a court of law.

They just told muslim women they don't care if they're equals or not.

re: #42 MandyManners

What can stop this insanity?

Acknowledgment of the problem is the first thing. We must make the people take off their collective PC blinders and grow awareness of this creeping social mandate know as islam... arm your loved ones with knowledge (and arms if they know how to use them properly to defend themselves). Tell them to continue to remain frosty and alert for all types of cultural nonsense (aka sharia).

But I understand your frustration. If Paul Revere rides into town, and everyone shuts their shutters and goes to sleep thinking of happy Hollweird stars and starlets...

/ I'm trying to do my part.

And so much blood was shed for the Magna Carta.

Sure, why not? Sharia couts will be dealing with small matters like what happens to women in a divorce and other small matters. This will help to clear up the court dockets. It isn't going to grow into a pesky world domination thingy. Besides, this will leave the courts more time to prosecute infidel Britons who insult Islam.

/must I?

re: #57 Sharmuta

Not only that, Mandy- they might not even know they can reject this route.

Will their husbands/fathers/brothers/uncles allow them to be told this?

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.”

Well- OF COURSE Bunghole would support this.

re: #55 So?

"can you hear me (sharia) knocking?"

This is Exeter Cathedral in England. Only a fool would think it safe if this islamization runs its full course.

re: #29 buzzsawmonkey

Domestic violence should be a criminal matter. In purely civil matters, however, if the parties choose to submit to binding arbitration, well, they choose to submit.

That's true here too; whether people submit to a private secular arbitrator, a beit din, a sharia court, or Judge Joe Brown, they are the ones choosing to submit to the decision--and if they've agreed to accept the decision of the arbitrator they have both accepted, the arbitrator's decision is backed by the courts.

Ah, yes, but you know that women in Islam are not like small claims litigants; there will be intense pressure for them to submit to Sharia courts. And they won't get on TV or get a paid settlement from the network. They'll be left in darkness at the mercy of their slimy husbands and slimy families. Women desiring the protection of the regular courts have now had their feet cut out from under them. This is a terrible turn of events.

Ain't that nice - two separate legals systems in GB. Fuckin' great. So, let's see how this little experiment in "diversity" works out. What if one of us infidels "wrongs" a muslim, or the reverse? How exactly does this work?

Great Britain, your government is truly fucked up. The camel has more than the toe in the tent, it has the head, neck and the hump in there.

You guys are toast. Doesn't your government listen to the people at all? Wait, they do, so long as your religion cult is islam.

re: #4 buzzsawmonkey

Not to downplay the encroachments of Islam in Britain, but that is basically permitting sharia courts to act as binding arbitrators, which is the same thing that is extended to a beit din (Jewish religious court).

I never thought that was a good idea either. Do both people have to agree to use those arbitrators rather than the regular courts? Do the communities involved intimidate people or shun people who want to go the civil route? I remember being shocked when I first read about beit din procedures being used instead of courts.

re: #43 buzzsawmonkey

Understand that I am not arguing for this. I'm merely pointing out that all manner of people are permitted to act as arbitrators--here as well as in Britain. And that their decisions are backed by the regular court system.

The courts are big on this because it lightens their caseload.

the problem is that in this misogynistic society, women have just been told,
britian offically accepts the islamic rule of law for them.
there will be so much more pressure in their communities for women to conform to 2nd class citizenship, now.
this not good. this is a move backwards.

You can beat your wife if you and she are Muslim. How BADLY can you beat her? What if you maim her? Kill her? What if you beat the hell out of your daughter in order to force her to marry? What if you try to kill her over "honor" but only grievously wound her?

WHERE'S THE FUCKING LINE, BRITAIN?

Will bobbies now have to carry stones with them just in case.

re: #1 rp1138Yep, The Jack has been replaced with the Crescent..

Without question, British citizens will be subjected to shariah court rulings which run counter to their rights under British law.

Most of those citizens (probably women) won't go to official authorities and have the shariah ruling overruled. And whether out of fear of physical reprisals or out of ignorance that they have that right, it will be another victory for evil.

re: #55 So?

I wonder what Mick Jagger would say.

that's another problem. forum shopping. why won't he just hope on over to the shieks 'court' and click his heels 3 times for a divorce from his latest model.

bbiab I'm steamed.

Last one out shut off the lights.

Madness.

You went through this, Britian, and now...?

re: #73 MandyManners

You can beat your wife if you and she are Muslim. How BADLY can you beat her?

That's why ISNA has a workshop on how to properly beat your wife. Can you imagine even being allowed to have a workshop like that? Yet it was in Columbus, OH.

OT/

France 24 just showed a report of a female reporter embedded with the Taliban, go off with them as they attacked a police checkpoint at night.

The result 3 policemen dead, and a French reporter touting about how these men show a sense of nationalism, and how they're "... fighting for freedom". Stated that this will be on the site. I've got to check it to send a link.

/ F-ing "journalists"...

It's not even the men pressuring the women- it's other women like that woman imam from the "undercover mosque" who will tell other muslim women they have to go with shari'a courts if they are good muslims. Sick- just sick.

re: #71 Sunlight

I never thought that was a good idea either. Do both people have to agree to use those arbitrators rather than the regular courts? Do the communities involved intimidate people or shun people who want to go the civil route? I remember being shocked when I first read about beit din procedures being used instead of courts.

Beit Din has no authority to enforce their rulings, not even in Israel. That is why there is such a problem with scofflaws in divorce cases.

Buzzsawmonkey (no. 29, above) has a point. The key fact in the article is:

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.

So, anyone not wanting the results of Sharia law can refuse to agree to the procedure. Criminal proceedings are really not within the purview of this: related civil matters (e.g., the lawsuit for the injury resulting from the criminal act) can be taken to the Sharia court - again if both parties agree - but not the criminal case (the party there is the Crown, which will not agree to go into Sharia court).

Of course, if a party agrees to taking the civil matter to Sharia court, and the matter is resolved according to the complainant's wishes, he/she can withdraw the criminal complaint - in which case the Crown may or may not proceed anyway.

The big issue is whether some parties (especially women) will - in fact - be free (socially) to refuse the Sharia jurisdiction. If that becomes an issue, it needs to be addressed. But there is really nothing wrong with the theory from a western-culture standpoint.

re: #4 buzzsawmonkey

Not to downplay the encroachments of Islam in Britain, but that is basically permitting sharia courts to act as binding arbitrators, which is the same thing that is extended to a beit din (Jewish religious court).

Arbitration is arbitration and one is much the same as the other as long as both parties freely agree to the terms. But this aspect is somewhat interesting:

...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 it’s appalling. I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.”...

What the hell? The shadow home secretary(scrutinizes government policy on home affairs including policing, national security, immigration, the criminal justice system, the prison service, and matters of citizenship) isn't aware of this change? I don't know what the Centre for Social Cohesion is,(Their web site describes them as :AIMS: The Centre for Social Cohesion is an non-partisan think-tank that studies issues related to community cohesion in Britain. Headquartered in London, it was founded in 2007 by Civitas to promote new thinking that can help bring Britain's ethnic and religious communities closer together while strengthening British traditions of openness, tolerance and democracy) but they apparently have no clue either according to their director.
Did some underlings somewhere just declare a small coup and institute this when no one was looking?

re: #75 cardinal4

Yep, The Jack has been replaced with the Crescent..

They'll keep the Jack, but replace St. George's cross with a green "circle of embrace."

re: #64 wintercat

Sure, why not? Sharia couts will be dealing with small matters like what happens to women in a divorce and other small matters. This will help to clear up the court dockets. It isn't going to grow into a pesky world domination thingy. Besides, this will leave the courts more time to prosecute infidel Britons who insult Islam.

/must I?

Hey, it will give the courts more time to prosecute dads who whack naked boys in their daughters' bedrooms with their pipes. And to ban pipes as deadly weapons.

OT... link to the France 24 report.
fighting-with-the-taliban

What I find so inconceivable is that this is the same country when facing certain destruction by the Nazis - The Luftwaffe annihilating British cities nightly and U-boats strangling its coastline - the British people persevered and remained steadfast. Now, they submit like they're French. How pathetic!

re: #87 AuldTrafford

The big issue is whether some parties (especially women) will - in fact - be free (socially) to refuse the Sharia jurisdiction.

They won't be.

Well... if there's a bright side it's that when Britain is in ruins we can learn from their mistakes...

re: #87 AuldTrafford

But there is really nothing wrong with the theory from a western-culture standpoint.

But there is everything wrong with it from a sovereignty standpoint.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

Are sharia courts still voluntary?

re: #96 Racer X

Are sharia courts still voluntary?

Were they ever voluntary?

Does this mean that women will now have to drive cars with steering wheels on the left side when accused of infidelity?

/that's if they survive the stoning

re: #74 So?

Will bobbies now have to carry stones with them just in case.

No, two sets of blindfolds - one for themselves and the other for the victim.

re: #55 So?

I wonder what Mick Jagger would say.

Oh, a storm is threatning
My very life today
If I dont get some shelter
Oh yeah, Im gonna fade away

War, children, its just a shot away
Its just a shot away
War, children, its just a shot away
Its just a shot away

Ooh, see the fire is sweepin
Our very street today
Burns like a red coal carpet
Mad bull lost its way

War, children, its just a shot away
Its just a shot away
War, children, its just a shot away
Its just a shot away

Rape, murder!
Its just a shot away
Its just a shot away

SNIP

There is no shelter from Sharia.

re: #45 Sharmuta

The Brits have to revoke this as a legitimate means to arbitrate.

Once granted, I'm afraid these things are not likely to be revoked.

"I will be master in my own house."

—Queen Elizabeth Tudor.

The mosques are going to turn into torture chambers.

[deleted]

re: #97 Alouette

Were they ever voluntary?

If I'm in England they sure as hell will not be mandatory.

I've always believed that if you feel you need a stiff shot, then, you really don't need it.

I don't think I need it therefore I do. (Does that make sense?)

Why the hell am I bawling like a baby?

And so, the UK abandons civilization.

And enters a Dark Age. For the 7th century basis of Sharia is most certainly a GREATER decline into ignorance and barbarism than Roman Europe faced when conquered by Germanic tribes...

Governments are instituted among people to secure their rights, liberties and property. When the government does not do so it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. The Labour party in the United Kingdom has effectively abolished the ancient, if unwritten, constitution and transfered soveriegnty to a foreign unelected body called the European Commission. It has destroyed the power of the Lords, who were to the surprise of foreigners the most democratic body in the government, to check it from packing the courts and establishing a defacto dictatorship. Having done so it then uses the mechanism of administrative orders to create structures parallel to the established administrative and judicial institutions that the people had by Parliament consented to.

re: #82 buzzsawmonkey

There is nothing phobic about being deeply concerned about the spread of a religious/political doctrine that promotes the subjugation and murder of non-believers, treats women like property, and fosters extremism and violence. Islam in total will have to clean up its act from the inside out before it warrants any respect from me. Does that make me an Islamaphobe in some people's view? I really don't give a d*mn.

Unfreaking believable. How long until we are bailing Great Britain out of this mess?

re: #106 MandyManners

Why the hell am I bawling like a baby?

Because fellow women are getting screwed and Britain has sanctioned it.

re: #110 livefreeor die

Unfreaking believable. How long until we are bailing Great Britain out of this mess?

What's our chalk doing under their cliffs?

re: #103 So?

The mosques are going to turn into torture chambers.

The mosques will remake Auschwitz.

There is more hatred, intolerance, and the endorsement of death in the name of their "allah" (who I will NEVER acknowledge as being the Judeo-Christian God) than there was in Hitler's germany.

One more reason not to vote for a sympathizer

re: #109 wintercat

There is nothing phobic about being deeply concerned about the spread of a religious/political doctrine that promotes the subjugation and murder of non-believers, treats women like property, and fosters extremism and violence. Islam in total will have to clean up its act from the inside out before it warrants any respect from me. Does that make me an Islamaphobe in some people's view? I really don't give a d*mn.

Muslims are "freedomphobic"

Well, Naomi Wolf thinks the effacing garments that Muslim women have to wear are just dandy; they provide a protected zone of privacy that's just wonderful for family life. The liberals are more than ready to accept Sharia law.

Fuck you, Great Britain! You have betrayed civlization at its most precious level, and that is the notion of equality before the law.

Off Topic, but i just bought my sons the complete "Book of Fairy Tales" by the brothers Grimm (a collection of germanic fairy tales). for the most part they are good stories but then i realized there was a story called ''The Jew in the Brambles,'' a story in which the hero tortures a Jewish peddler using a magic fiddle, making him dance in thorn bushes; at the end the peddler is hanged. i was just like "wow". talk about trying to get them at a young age!

Oh, please please please someone ask BHO and Sen. McCain about this.

re: #110 livefreeor die

Unfreaking believable. How long until we are bailing Great Britain out of this mess?

I say we take their best and let the lefties there rot in their mess.

Heh... to paraphrase Rorschach from the graphic novel Watchmen:

The liberals and intellectuals in England will look up to America and shout "save us". And America will look down and whisper "no".

re: #108 lifeofthemind

Governments are instituted among people to secure their rights, liberties and property. When the government does not do so it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. The Labour party in the United Kingdom has effectively abolished the ancient, if unwritten, constitution and transfered soveriegnty to a foreign unelected body called the European Commission. It has destroyed the power of the Lords, who were to the surprise of foreigners the most democratic body in the government, to check it from packing the courts and establishing a defacto dictatorship. Having done so it then uses the mechanism of administrative orders to create structures parallel to the established administrative and judicial institutions that the people had by Parliament consented to.

Unfortunate that the British have no Constitution. Nor do they own firearms anymore. At least, the law abiding ones.

The Muslims do, no question about it. They do to the extent that the police won't go into their zones.

It's becoming more and more obvious that Stein's "America Alone" scenario WILL come to pass... What is left of non Sharia europe will flee to the USA in the next decades. Europe will become another... Africa... Another middle east... A collection of failed states of poverty ruled by leaders who exploit their populations, completely devoid of democracy.

The US will survive because we will import more Christians, be them illegals from Mexico, or refugees from EUrabia, than muslims will manage to make it in.

re: #113 wildcat84

The mosques will remake Auschwitz.

There is more hatred, intolerance, and the endorsement of death in the name of their "allah" (who I will NEVER acknowledge as being the Judeo-Christian God) than there was in Hitler's germany.

At least more outspoken and in-your-face hatred. The Nazi-Regime at least made a small effort to hide some of their cruelty.

It would not surprise me to learn that most Britons don't even know this is happening. They're just so appalled by the thought Sarah Palin and John McCain could win the election and Barry would be out on his butt, that this death knell to their country is going unnoticed.

Will homosexuals be given equal treatment under Sharia law? Will women?
This is a grave mistake.

Hello all. I don't usually check in on the weekends, but I did today and walked right into a firestorm.

This all seems like one very slippery slope to me. One more reason to vote for Palin McCain.

I read of bombings, "honor" murders, Hizb' Allah, Hamas, bin Laden, and all the other fruits of Islam but, this has affected me the most.

Again, fuck you, Great Britain, you miserable sods.

re: #121 buzzsawmonkey

Make no mistake, if the argument is simply that "Islam is different," it will be dismissed as bigotry out of hand. Therefore, any argument against sharia courts being permitted to rule on matters here the way a beit din does will have to be refined to be able to make a distinction without appearing to be based on mere prejudice, which will not stand up.

Islam does not treat the claimants as equals, whether they are women or kuffar. For me- that's enough to not permit them in any country that values individual rights and treats all citizens as equal before and under the law.

This is who Britain has caved into...

Saudi cleric wants death for TV "sorcerers"
14 Sep 2008 09:52:38 GMT
Source: Reuters
RIYADH, Sept 14 (Reuters) - A senior Saudi cleric has said purveyors of horoscopes on Arab television should face the death penalty, a paper said on Sunday, days after another cleric argued death for TV owners.

"Sorcerers who appear on satellite channels who are proven to be sorcerers have committed a great crime ... and the Muslim consensus is that the apostate's punishment is death by the sword," Sheikh Saleh al-Fozan told al-Madina daily.

[Link: www.alertnet.org...]

I finally understand, Saudi clerics are The Angels of Death.

re: #121 buzzsawmonkey

It's not me you have to convince.

By playing devil's advocate here just a little, and pointing up the surface similarity of sharia courts to halachic courts, the American Arbitration Association, and the People's Court, it is my objective to get people to think about the differences and to refine their arguments so that they will be able to take a more effective stand against the same thing happening here.

Make no mistake, if the argument is simply that "Islam is different," it will be dismissed as bigotry out of hand. Therefore, any argument against sharia courts being permitted to rule on matters here the way a beit din does will have to be refined to be able to make a distinction without appearing to be based on mere prejudice, which will not stand up.

Does a beit din allow the mistreatment of a woman? The unequal share in an estate?

I guess the question is at what point does something become "too big" for the Sharia courts to handle. If they are judging on domestic violence, what happens when that violence ends in death?

OK now time for everyone to stop shrieking and think of a proper response.

What I see is needed are brave people who are willing to go into these communities, open up store front centers nad constantly intervene with these women to get them to refuse to accept these Islamic arbitration courts. They also need to teach self defense. Family law and rights and English history. Every day in those streets and knocking on doors. Expect rioting, bombing and bicycle chain attacks. It needs to be done to break the grip these monsters have on these enslaved women.

re: #123 callahan23

At least more outspoken and in-your-face hatred. The Nazi-Regime at least made a small effort to hide some of their cruelty.

Yeah, listening to the left the only mistake the Nazis made was not calling their outright genocide a "religion of peace".

No difference. But it may even be worse. Thankfully, Germany had only one Hitler.

Unfortunately the ROP has a Hitler protegee in practically every mosque.

Mickey is quaking in his boots.

re: #121 buzzsawmonkey

halachic courts, the American Arbitration Association, and the People's Court,

Do these have the full weight of U.S. law behind their decisions? Are people prosecuted if they don't obey the ruling?

re: #127 MandyManners

I read of bombings, "honor" murders, Hizb' Allah, Hamas, bin Laden, and all the other fruits of Islam but, this has affected me the most.

Again, fuck you, Great Britain, you miserable sods.

I agree, Mandy. A Western nation has voluntarily turned its back on the blatant mistreatment of women and other groups that Islam views as lesser beings. Hell, they're facilitating it.

Weak kneed bastards.

re: #32 MandyManners

This is a fucking nightmare.

Indeed.

re: #110 livefreeor die

Unfreaking believable. How long until we are bailing Great Britain out of this mess?

Never.

If you are attacked from outside your borders, America will be there to help. Get taken over from within - not much we can do.

re: #102 Ojoe

"I will be master in my own house."

—Queen Elizabeth Tudor.

Whaddaya' wanna' bet she's trying to claw her way out of the grave?

I know there was a full moon this weekend, but this...

re: #64 wintercat

Besides, this will leave the courts more time to prosecute infidel Britons who insult Islam.

/must I?

What's sad is that it is so true.

#139

Cherie Blair is happy, tho.

re: #131 Ford_Prefect

I guess the question is at what point does something become "too big" for the Sharia courts to handle. If they are judging on domestic violence, what happens when that violence ends in death?

What happens in Jordan and the rest of the Islamic world when a husband/father/brother/uncle kills a woman?

re: #139 MandyManners

Whaddaya' wanna' bet she's trying to claw her way out of the grave?

Maggie Thatcher is probably there with a shovel helping her.

re: #132 lifeofthemind

OK now time for everyone to stop shrieking and think of a proper response.

What I see is needed are brave people who are willing to go into these communities, open up store front centers nad constantly intervene with these women to get them to refuse to accept these Islamic arbitration courts. They also need to teach self defense. Family law and rights and English history. Every day in those streets and knocking on doors. Expect rioting, bombing and bicycle chain attacks. It needs to be done to break the grip these monsters have on these enslaved women.

What we need to do is for everyone who disagrees with their government to leave.

Since Europe has evolved "beyond" democracy into an oligarchy of EU "intellectuals" who trump democratic law and responsibility, to the LAST bastion of people influenced law, the United States.

Here, in the New World, we will make the final stand of civilization vs mohammedism.

Sorry to go off topic, but I mentioned in the previous thread that I'd post links to pictures of the two Ukrainian women I met on my trip there several months ago, who I continue to write to. It took a day or so to adjust to being in a country and city that are different in many ways, but I was sorry to leave when it was time to go. And one thing I liked about Ukraine ... I didn't see any mosques there, but I did see many Christian churches, and statues of the Virgin Mary. And somehow I don't see the Ukrainers rolling over for Islam the way Britain has.

By the way, Oksana (second pic) is wearing a blouse I bought her ... good sign! Wish I had the money to go back right now.

[Link: img299.imageshack.us...]

[Link: img299.imageshack.us...]

re: #42 MandyManners

What Who can stop this insanity?

Muslim women. They have to rise up, demand freedom and equality, and take it.

Will they?

re: #132 lifeofthemind

OK now time for everyone to stop shrieking and think of a proper response.

What I see is needed are brave people who are willing to go into these communities, open up store front centers nad constantly intervene with these women to get them to refuse to accept these Islamic arbitration courts. They also need to teach self defense. Family law and rights and English history. Every day in those streets and knocking on doors. Expect rioting, bombing and bicycle chain attacks. It needs to be done to break the grip these monsters have on these enslaved women.

I know what you are saying, but who is going to have time to do this? We don't have Saudi funding to pay our bills. And they know it.

In 2006 there had been just over three million Muslims in Germany. By 2016 this had grown to five, even as the number of Germans in the country had dropped and the average age of those who remained had increased. By 2019, with the massive influx of refugees from the radioactive ruins of the Islamic world, there were ten million Muslims in Germany or roughly thirteen percent of the population. Their average age was younger. Worse, the percentage of those that could be considered radical had grown enormously, partly as a result of the American atrocities against them, but equally because of their second class status in Germany.

Then again, there were those who claimed that Muslims would be radicalized by any social order that didn't place them on top and everyone else beneath them, as the Holy Koran called for.

Gabi didn't, couldn't, believe that. Fascist, racist nonsense, she thought. People are just people and will act well unless the iniquities and inequalities of society are too much to bear.

Muslim society in Germany was also highly urbanized. In the largest cities, some of them, they even made up a majority of the population. Even where they didn't, they often had the numbers where young and belligerent males were concerned. Street fights had become common. Nor were Germans generally coming out on top, except in the case of those who sided with the Muslim street brawlers, such as Anti-Fascist Action, a German derivative of a Swedish movement with origins in the British Isles. As in Sweden and parts of France twenty years prior, there were places in Germany now where the police simply would not go.

In an effort to placate the Muslims and stem the violence, Germany had established Sharia courts under Islamic scholars for Muslim communities. Moreover, acting under orders from the Supreme Court, itself under the European Court of Justice (itself having taken in and taken over the personnel and duties of the European Court of Human Rights), local German courts had taken to using Sharia in cases involving only Muslims within Germany.

If this did anything to stem the outrage of Muslim residents, though, it was tolerably hard to see.

In Nuremberg, however, things were not so bad. Of the city's population of about half a million, fewer than twenty-five thousand were Islamic. There were neighborhoods Gabi and Amal dared not go, of course, as there were in virtually every European city. But they were few, small, and generally avoidable.

Too, Gabi avoided thinking about the implications of there being places within her own country that she and her child dared not go.

The Christkindlmarkt hadn't opened in several years. The last time it had, even Nuremberg's comparatively few Muslims had been able to shut it down . . . violently. This had, as in many parts of Europe, led to an expansion of Muslim representation in the Polizei. The practical effect of that, however, had merely been to give the imams and mullahs their own, state-funded, enforcement arms. If it produced greater peace within and around the Muslim community it was only because, having no place else to turn, moderate Muslims knuckled under to the rule of the mullahs.

Before Europe betrayed itself, it first made sure to betray those outsiders who truly wanted to become European.

I hope I'm not infringing on any copyrights by reprinting this excerpt from Tom Kratman's excellent book Caliphate.

Life, slowly but surely, imitating art.

re: #132 lifeofthemind

OK now time for everyone to stop shrieking and think of a proper response.

What I see is needed are brave people who are willing to go into these communities, open up store front centers nad constantly intervene with these women to get them to refuse to accept these Islamic arbitration courts. They also need to teach self defense. Family law and rights and English history. Every day in those streets and knocking on doors. Expect rioting, bombing and bicycle chain attacks. It needs to be done to break the grip these monsters have on these enslaved women.

How much do you want to bet that the Islamic COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS get the police to stop this intervention?!

re: #147 Josephine

Muslim women. They have to rise up, demand freedom and equality, and take it.

Will they?

They need to be educated and armed.

Magna Carta

re: #147 Josephine

Muslim women. They have to rise up, demand freedom and equality, and take it.

Will they?

How can they? mohammedian culture is the last bastion of polygamy. A righteous Muslim woman can get outvoted by her competitors in the harem.

Not to downplay the encroachments of Islam in Britain, but that is basically permitting sharia courts to act as binding arbitrators, which is the same thing that is extended to a beit din (Jewish religious court).

Yes, but islam isn't a fully volitional religion, now is it? How can participation ever be determined to be "uncoerced" when refusal could result in a judgment of disobedience involving physical violence (for women per Q4:34), or even worse, apostasy? . . . . So I suppose it goes something like this: the husband/male relative off handedly "proposes" a (binding) shariah arbitration to the trouble making muslima - and then its time for everybody to sit back and see how good a muslima she really is . . .

My heart actually sank when I read this. They are already letting those bullshit "courts" rule on domestic violence - an entirely criminal matter.

I'm stunned beyond words, and so incredibly sad.

re: #122 wildcat84

Unfortunate that the British have no Constitution.

They do of course, it just isn't written down. Terrible violence has been done to it over the last dozen years.

re: #146 Tigger2005

Can I write to the first girl also?

re: #140 So?

I know there was a full moon this weekend, but this...

It's been going on for a year. About 100 cases have been "adjudicated" by this hellish system.

Goodbye Britain! Neville would be so proud of you!

re: #4 buzzsawmonkey

I was wondering this same thing. However, I am much more comfortable with the way Jews settle disputes and mete out justice.

re: #62 So?

If I had the money to put this on a billboard, I would do so.

re: #145 wildcat84

What we need to do is for everyone who disagrees with their government to leave.

Since Europe has evolved "beyond" democracy into an oligarchy of EU "intellectuals" who trump democratic law and responsibility, to the LAST bastion of people influenced law, the United States.

Here, in the New World, we will make the final stand of civilization vs mohammedism.

One problem... we import Europeans we bring their European attitudes. They will probably start voting for the same crap that ruined their fatherland. And if they didn't take a stand in their home turf, they probably won't in a foreign one.

re: #102 Ojoe

"I will be master in my own house."

—Queen Elizabeth Tudor.

That whirring noise is Elizabeth, spinnin' like a lathe in her grave.

The new motto is: Rue Brittania

re: #156 lifeofthemind

They do of course, it just isn't written down. Terrible violence has been done to it over the last dozen years.

If it isn't written down, then it doesn't exist, does it?

re: #159 galloping granny

Goodbye Britain! Neville would be so proud of you!

How about Richard Chamberlain?

re: #147 Josephine

Muslim women. They have to rise up, demand freedom and equality, and take it.

Will they?

I highly doubt it. The ones who've been raised in seclusion just won't get it.

re: #121 buzzsawmonkey

Buzzsaw, I understand the point that you are trying to make about the judgements being made being similar to any other judgements made by an abitrator, but in the case of Islam it has to be assumed that if a woman is involved then she is not their by her choosing. And the decision will not be one that she will have chosen to accept. She has no choice. Or, rather, her choice is accept or die. That makes these judgements very different.

re: #154 Lynn

Yes, but islam isn't a fully volitional religion, now is it? How can participation ever be determined to be "uncoerced" when refusal could result in a judgment of disobedience involving physical violence (for women per Q4:34), or even worse, apostasy? . . . . So I suppose it goes something like this: the husband/male relative off handedly "proposes" a (binding) shariah arbitration to the trouble making muslima - and then its time for everybody to sit back and see how good a muslima she really is . . .

I've never in my lifetime known of a Jew murdered with at least tacit sanction by a huge porportion of his religion for leaving it or breaking laws of it that violate conventional modern civil law.

Nor a Christian.

In islam this happens virtually every day. Dishonor killings... Murders and threats of murders of those who are "apostates" (IE: those who realize that a 7th century moral and legal system is, well, more than a millennium obsolete!)

re: #121 buzzsawmonkey

It's not me you have to convince.

By playing devil's advocate here just a little, and pointing up the surface similarity of sharia courts to halachic courts, the American Arbitration Association, and the People's Court, it is my objective to get people to think about the differences and to refine their arguments so that they will be able to take a more effective stand against the same thing happening here.

Make no mistake, if the argument is simply that "Islam is different," it will be dismissed as bigotry out of hand. Therefore, any argument against sharia courts being permitted to rule on matters here the way a beit din does will have to be refined to be able to make a distinction without appearing to be based on mere prejudice, which will not stand up.

You are absolutely correct that an argument indicating a difference based on substance, rather than just feelings about Islam, needs to be formed.

Is this a good place to try to do that? In other words: Are there people here sufficiently knowledgeable about the differences between the British sharia courts and current practice here as re: arbitration, who could school the rest of us?

I think it is also possible that we would need to wait to see how this plays out in Britain (or find out, those who can). Oftentimes it seems to me things change over the course of time. What might be the stated purpose of the sharia courts now, might in practice end up being something else in a year or two.

re: #121 buzzsawmonkey

It's not me you have to convince.

By playing devil's advocate here just a little, and pointing up the surface similarity of sharia courts to halachic courts, the American Arbitration Association, and the People's Court, it is my objective to get people to think about the differences and to refine their arguments so that they will be able to take a more effective stand against the same thing happening here.

Make no mistake, if the argument is simply that "Islam is different," it will be dismissed as bigotry out of hand. Therefore, any argument against sharia courts being permitted to rule on matters here the way a beit din does will have to be refined to be able to make a distinction without appearing to be based on mere prejudice, which will not stand up.

I'd think the same argument could be applied that one would one make against the establishment of a "Wiseguy" Arbitration Association? You know, to settle family "bidness disputes" an all dat. Same same, different name.

re: #162 Basho

One problem... we import Europeans we bring their European attitudes. They will probably start voting for the same crap that ruined their fatherland. And if they didn't take a stand in their home turf, they probably won't in a foreign one.

The ones we import will be those who don't embrace their Sharia masters and who don't want to pay their jizra nor dress their women in sacks.

True, they are a minority in EUrabia, but bringing them here will be an asset.

re: #143 MandyManners

What happens in Jordan and the rest of the Islamic world when a husband/father/brother/uncle kills a woman?

Exactly. Where is the line where the English courts step in and say that this is not something the Sharia courts have the authority to rule on?

re: #121 buzzsawmonkey

Well, let me turn the tables and play devil's advocate to you for a minute.

Please point me to one case where halachic courts are giving a pass to Jewish men who are committing "honor" killings, locking women in their homes or beating them in the streets because their ankles are showing, or stoning them because they were seen with a man who isn't their husband? I think that is the material difference we are talking about here.

How does this compare to the Sharia court/arbitrator issue in Texas?

I think it was in the news about 6-10 months ago.....

My jaw is on the floor on this one.

Maybe the Mayans were onto something.

re: #164 galloping granny

If it isn't written down, then it doesn't exist, does it?

An oral contract is worth the paper it's written on!

re: #157 So?

Can I write to the first girl also?

Well, I suppose ya can ... if you can find the web site. I ain't tellin' what it is.

The full Moon is tomorry.... at 9:13pm

/it may get worse before it gets better....

Can't wait to hear that talking head on YouTube on this subject. (forget his name Pat something.)

re: #176 capitalist piglet

My jaw is on the floor on this one.

Maybe the Mayans were onto something.

And what is that?

re: #55 So?

he would have converted, and taken his divorce case to this court rather than the British courts.

re: #62 So?

And so much blood was shed for the Magna Carta.

That's from a time when men would fight for their honor, fight for their land and fight for... well... most anything really... to the progressives in charge such thinking is the antithesis of the mindset that lets them stay in power...

Modern British civil war or slipping quietly into the darkness of history? Choice is that of the average Brit to make although his *betters* seem to prefer any other choice than to either admitting fault or being shoved out of power...

re: #180 So?

Can't wait to hear that talking head on YouTube on this subject. (forget his name Pat something.)

Pat Condell.

re: #170 buzzsawmonkey

If both parties have agreed to one of these as an arbitrator, and the party ruled against does not comply with the arbitrator's ruling, the ruling can be entered in the appropriate court and enforced with the full weight of the court system behind it.

Liens and the like.

and though it is off topic (anf probably overplayed by now), I am going to say it anyhow....

Sarah Palin.... coldest state/hottest governor

Buzzsawmonkey:

Apropos of my earlier comment:

A dispatches documentary about islamic apostates in the U.K.:

"Unholy War"

re: #179 windhorse

The full Moon is tomorry.... at 9:13pm

/it may get worse before it gets better....

Tomorrow Wall Street implodes over the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy.

/mayan prophecy #2

re: #175 akak

How does this compare to the Sharia court/arbitrator issue in Texas?

I think it was in the news about 6-10 months ago.....

In the United States, it's in the Constitution: "Congress Shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion..."

Meaning that Sharia cannot have ANY standing as a contract as protected by law because it's based in a particular religion.

(this is the one case where the libs may help us some)

What this means is that if you WANT to follow Sharia, go for it. However, no one can COMPEL you to, using the weight and force of the law and courts to enforce it.
Europe has surrendered that principle.

Allah save the Queen.
On the other hand, when her idiotarian son assumes the throne, I would not be surprised if he chose to be coronated in a mosque.
The jokes could go on forever: The Grand Mosque of Westminster; The Grand Mufti of Canterbury; Heads on pikes on London Bridge (again).

re: #167 Ford_Prefect

. . . in the case of Islam it has to be assumed that if a woman is involved then she is not their by her choosing. And the decision will not be one that she will have chosen to accept. She has no choice. Or, rather, her choice is accept or die. That makes these judgements very different.

I think you are correct, a correct assumption to make is that a woman will not have freely chosen this. However . . . in granting the sharia courts this power, it seems to me Britain has decided to make just the opposite assumption . . . that anyone agreeing to use the sharia court is doing so by free choice.

That makes these judgments and the British acceptance of these courts very very dangerous, imo.

OT,

Is everyone prepared for the market meltdown coming tomorrow? Lehman is going into bankrupcty, Merrill Lynch is hoping to be aquired by Bank of America, if they are lucky, and AIG is in serious trouble. This could be a major collapse of markets in the making. Look for the Dow to lose 500 to 1000 points tomorrow.

Charles -

To keep this discussion clear -

1. Are "Sharia Courts" accepted as COURTS or as "Mediation Panels?"

2. Are the Decisions of "Sharia Courts" appealable to the Queen's Courts of Common Law?

3. If the answers to #1 and #2 are "NO" - then Britain is Gone - save the Soccer Hooligans.

Que Lastima si Es la Verdad!

-S-

re: #95 Ojoe

But there is everything wrong with it from a sovereignty standpoint.

No, there isn't. These are civil matters - dispute resolution. It is fundamental to a free society that free individuals are free to resolve their disputes any way they see fit. Most governments provide tribunals for that purpose, but free people are free to avoid them.

Do you really think it offends your nation's sovereignty every time you agree with someone about something without consulting your government? Holy cow!

re: #184 Sparkizzy

Thanks!

re: #121 buzzsawmonkey

Ontario, Canada

2005:

"Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty says there will be no sharia law in his province and that he will move to ban all faith-based arbitrations.

"Seeking to end months of debate, McGuinty said he would not let his province become the first Western government to allow the use of Islamic law to settle family disputes and that the boundaries between church and state would become clearer by banning religious arbitration completely.

"'There will be no Shariah law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians,' McGuinty told The Canadian Press...

"Ontario, the most populous province in Canada, has allowed Catholic and Jewish faith-based tribunals to settle family law matters such as divorce on a voluntary basis since 1991.

"The practice got little attention until Muslim leaders demanded the same rights.

"Officials had to decide whether to exclude one religion, or whether to scrap the religious family courts altogether.

"McGuinty said such courts 'threaten our common ground,' and promised his Liberal government would introduce legislation as soon as possible to outlaw them in Ontario.

"'Ontarians will always have the right to seek advice from anyone in matters of family law, including religious advice,' he said. 'But no longer will religious arbitration be deciding matters of family law...'"

re: #190 meh130

Allah save the Queen.
On the other hand, when her idiotarian son assumes the throne, I would not be surprised if he chose to be coronated in a mosque.
The jokes could go on forever: The Grand Mosque of Westminster; The Grand Mufti of Canterbury; Heads on pikes on London Bridge (again).

Elizabeth II has witnessed the death of Britain much as Victoria witnessed the real end of their Empire.

Sad because as a young woman she definitely had great principles.

re: #189 wildcat84

In the United States, it's in the Constitution: "Congress Shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion..."

Meaning that Sharia cannot have ANY standing as a contract as protected by law because it's based in a particular religion.

(this is the one case where the libs may help us some)

What this means is that if you WANT to follow Sharia, go for it. However, no one can COMPEL you to, using the weight and force of the law and courts to enforce it.
Europe has surrendered that principle.

I doubt it. They'll wax poetic about cultural diversity.

re: #188 So?

la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la....... (fingers in ears)

re: #193 Dr. Shalit

Charles -

To keep this discussion clear -

1. Are "Sharia Courts" accepted as COURTS or as "Mediation Panels?"

2. Are the Decisions of "Sharia Courts" appealable to the Queen's Courts of Common Law?

3. If the answers to #1 and #2 are "NO" - then Britain is Gone - save the Soccer Hooligans.

Que Lastima si Es la Verdad!

-S-

The test will be if accepting Sharia courts as OBLIGATORY is compulsory or consensual. My bet is the former.

Once you remove the people's absolute right to the law, you've removed the law.

I usually just lurk but this is pretty outrageous. When will people wake up! This is absolutely a tragedy of epic proportions when a country like GB can no longer carry out of its most basic guarantees to its citizens, all in order to appease a rabid bunch of hoodlums.

This story should have had the title "EPIC FAIL!"

re: #197 wildcat84

Elizabeth II has witnessed the death of Britain much as Victoria witnessed the real end of their Empire.

Sad because as a young woman she definitely had great principles.

Allah save the Queen...?

I think they would prefer Allah stone the Queen. Imagine her showing off her handbags like that in public.

re: #194 AuldTrafford

No, there isn't. These are civil matters - dispute resolution. It is fundamental to a free society that free individuals are free to resolve their disputes any way they see fit. Most governments provide tribunals for that purpose, but free people are free to avoid them.

Do you really think it offends your nation's sovereignty every time you agree with someone about something without consulting your government? Holy cow!

I'm not speaking about sovereignity but, do you for one minute think that Muslim women will be able to freely agree to Sharia ADR?

And, this is NOT about civil matters completely. Domestic violence is a CRIME.

those involving domestic violence

OK, so a muslime beating his wife within an inch of her life for showing too much skin (e.g., letting an ankle or wrist show) is now judicially sanctioned in the UK? Wow.

How about "honor" killings? Seems like that falls within domestic violence.

This is where liberal appeasement leads. Any surprise? Not to anyone paying attention.

The backlash will be HUGE. Those facist forces that Charles (properly) rails against are going to use this to increase their numbers. Massively. The resulting bloodbath will be truly frightening. This time, though, we should stay the #### out of it.

re: #200 buzzsawmonkey

At least they're free to disagree!

By the way, as a former resident of Galveston (about thirty years ago), I offer up my condolences and very best wishes to y'all...

and talk about getting worse before better.... one only has to contemplate the situation down there after about three days of hot Texas sunshine beating down on that waterlogged town.....

I just emailed this article to a British friend of mine who works here in the US. His response was unbelievable. Here it is.
"Who would care about such a thing? The xenophobes? It's trivial." I guess you can make flippant comments like that when you don't live there anymore.

re: #145 wildcat84

"wildcat" -

Whadda Thought! Islamic WOMEN with MACHINE GUNS, taking CONTROL of the General Bullshit!

-S-

re: #198 MandyManners

I doubt it. They'll wax poetic about cultural diversity.

The irony is the Britney Spears/Paris Hilton/Bill Clinton/San Francisco Left will be the FIRST against the wall, when the ROP comes.

The ROP'ers hate them far more than they do Christian conservatives, not that they won't kill us too, but they will kill Hollywood first.

The irony is those of us in "bitter" America will probably die trying to save them.

We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and the oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surren..... oh, nevermind.

-Winston Churchill

If Britain could so easily dismiss the needs of their female muslim citizens for protection from abuse and equality of law- how can we be so sure other's aren't next?

First they came for the muslim women, and I did nothing because I am not a muslim woman.

On a very basic level, putting DV into a civil context tells a woman that the state/the crown considers her less than a person when it comes to protection from violence, that this is just a familial dispute.

re: #203 So?

Allah save the Queen...?

I think they would prefer Allah stone the Queen. Imagine her showing off her handbags like that in public.

They will go back to her youth to justify it. Elizabeth was quite a lovely woman in her prime.

What a hussy to show up in a angle length gown in public!

re: #210 wildcat84

The irony is the Britney Spears/Paris Hilton/Bill Clinton/San Francisco Left will be the FIRST against the wall, when the ROP comes.

The ROP'ers hate them far more than they do Christian conservatives, not that they won't kill us too, but they will kill Hollywood first.

The irony is those of us in "bitter" America will probably die trying to save them.

Paris Hilton won't go quietly.

Instead of the Britons coming here, let them go to New Zealand, a country which they seem to like very much. They have nothing in common with us anymore. Just a language.

Where are all the British feminist groups?

re: #208 falcon1

I just emailed this article to a British friend of mine who works here in the US. His response was unbelievable. Here it is.
"Who would care about such a thing? The xenophobes? It's trivial." I guess you can make flippant comments like that when you don't live there anymore.

Your friend obviously knows nothing about islam to say such a thing. I care, I'm not a xenophobe, but I am a feminist.

re: #212 Sharmuta

If Britain could so easily dismiss the needs of their female muslim citizens for protection from abuse and equality of law- how can we be so sure other's aren't next?

First they came for the muslim women, and I did nothing because I am not a muslim woman.

Oh, you've hit the nail on the head!

re: #121 buzzsawmonkey

It's not me you have to convince.

By playing devil's advocate here just a little, and pointing up the surface similarity of sharia courts to halachic courts, the American Arbitration Association, and the People's Court, it is my objective to get people to think about the differences and to refine their arguments so that they will be able to take a more effective stand against the same thing happening here.

Make no mistake, if the argument is simply that "Islam is different," it will be dismissed as bigotry out of hand. Therefore, any argument against sharia courts being permitted to rule on matters here the way a beit din does will have to be refined to be able to make a distinction without appearing to be based on mere prejudice, which will not stand up.

Islam treats women as chattel, I rest my case.

"Ismail al-Faruqi: Because humans are sometimes silly, as you [referring to John Meagher] said; because humans have passions, are obstinate and proud, do not see the truth without having their ears boxed.
John Meagher: I am not talking about boxing of ears; I am talking about murder!" --from Islam and Other Faiths, published by The Islamic Foundation; page 102.

In this segment, al-Faruqi was essentially defending Jihad as "Holy War" (page 100).

Until Jihad Islam is crushed, fools and tyrants will continue to pour into its ranks and coffers. And they will pour those who do not submit into mass graves.

re: #132 lifeofthemind

Shrieking? Okay...

Muslim women have to decide they don't want to be in chains. Once they decide that, they have to turn to the real legal system, they have to organize, etc. They will have to be the ones setting up the booths and risking their lives. Otherwise, non-Muslims doing this work will be attacked and killed by Muslim men and women and the Muslims policing those neighbourhoods won't lift a finger to protect them.

re: #217 So?

Where are all the British feminist groups?

Busy gearing up to condemn Gov. Palin.

re: #212 Sharmuta

If Britain could so easily dismiss the needs of their female muslim citizens for protection from abuse and equality of law- how can we be so sure other's aren't next?

First they came for the muslim women, and I did nothing because I am not a muslim woman.

Britain hasn't recognized the folly of appeasement since Churchill.

Unfortunately the US only half disagrees with the same policy.

re: #222 buzzsawmonkey

I'm sure she doesn't come quietly either.

LOL!

re: #208 falcon1

"Who would care about such a thing? The xenophobes? It's trivial."

I sure a lot of Britons feel that way. What's infuriating is that it is the muslims who are being the xenophobes by demanding to separate themselves from the rest of society.

re: #204 MandyManners

I'm not speaking about sovereignity but, do you for one minute think that Muslim women will be able to freely agree to Sharia ADR?

And, this is NOT about civil matters completely. Domestic violence is a CRIME.

Sorry - I addressed that in my original comment - then had to leave for awile, so it got lost.

Short answer: I don't know enough about the culture, but I certainly have my doubts. Problem is: if they're that controlled by their culture, I'm not sure the British civil courts will do them much good.

(Criminal cases are not covered by these Sharia courts - they are matters in which the Crown is a party, and the Crown will not go into Sharia Court.)

re: #133 wildcat84

Yeah, listening to the left the only mistake the Nazis made was not calling their outright genocide a "religion of peace".

No difference. But it may even be worse. Thankfully, Germany had only one Hitler.

Unfortunately the ROP has a Hitler protegee in practically every mosque.

I couldn't agree more and the links between the Nazis and the ROP are very well documented.
Ayatola Khomeini in his youth was an avid listener of the shortwave radio-propaganda in Farsi from a station close to Berlin.
A leading Nazi propagandist fled after WWII and started printing the atrocious historical-lie "The Protocols of ..." in the arab translation in Cairo and this smear-book is a top seller in many muslim countries to this day. So much so as those same texts are mirrored prominently in the agendas of Muslim-Brotherhood, Hamas, the PLO and are being taught in various universities. etc. pp.

re: #222 buzzsawmonkey

*whack*

re: #220 Taqyia2Me

Islam treats defines women as chattel, I rest my case.

re: #174 wintercat

Well, let me turn the tables and play devil's advocate to you for a minute.

Please point me to one case where halachic courts are giving a pass to Jewish men who are committing "honor" killings, locking women in their homes or beating them in the streets because their ankles are showing, or stoning them because they were seen with a man who isn't their husband? I think that is the material difference we are talking about here.

The issue with halachic courts is they will order an abusive husband to divorce his wife, he refuses to obey the edict, and there is no authority to enforce it.

Are we going to have to go in there and do some regime change? Chuck E. Cheese Windsor's head on a pike?

re: #170 buzzsawmonkey

Buzz, I defer to your obvious expertise in this matter.

Just my musing for a second. I wish I had faith in the full weight of the court. Was it in Britain or Australia where Greenpeace broke the law, and avoided any punishment in light of it?

re: #217 So?

Where are all the British feminist groups?

They are with the American feminist groups: Willing to ignore it as long as they have the sacred right to murder their non ROP babies who are "inconveniences" to them.

Participation in shariah courts will be technically "voluntary" but from what we have seen with women choosing not to wear the veil, or choosing whom to see, date, and marry being killed, the voluntarism will be in letter only.

For a while. Then, once the frog is used to that temperature, participation will be slowly made mandatory. First for only Muslims in certain areas. Then either for non-Muslims in Muslim areas, or for all Muslims in any area. And so it goes.

re: #192 Dublin(CA)Dude

OT,

Is everyone prepared for the market meltdown coming tomorrow? Lehman is going into bankrupcty, Merrill Lynch is hoping to be aquired by Bank of America, if they are lucky, and AIG is in serious trouble. This could be a major collapse of markets in the making. Look for the Dow to lose 500 to 1000 points tomorrow.

You thinking they might halt trading tomorrow?

I guess they'll have to rename the Union Jack to the Quack-a-Jack

Buzzsawmonkey: In answer to your challenge to produce arguments against extending arbitration powers to Sharia courts, I submit the following links:

[Link: www.muslimcanadiancongress.org...]

[Link: www.csmonitor.com...]

A recent proposal to implement Sharia arbitration in the Canadian province of Ontario was scrubbed. Much of the opposition to it came from liberal Muslim groups! The two links I've included above contain the major objections raised to the proposal by these groups.

Blaming the Jews again, Jewish religious courts operate under a completely different system than the sharia courts. Participation from both parties must be voluntary and both parties must accept the decisions for them to be binding. Further, any decision made by the Beth Din must comply with all the laws of the host country. Basically it allows orthodox Jews to carry out tradition and ritual (playing charades)while being compliant with the laws of the land. Here we have Sharia courts issuing decisions that the civil courts must enforce. Seems to me that the shoe is already on tr he other foot. The English have had it... just a matter of time now.

re: #172 wildcat84

The ones we import will be those who don't embrace their Sharia masters and who don't want to pay their jizra nor dress their women in sacks.

True, they are a minority in EUrabia, but bringing them here will be an asset.

That's not the way our multicult, leftwing immigration laws work.
We'd rather import Muslims, even fanatic ones, than Europeans.

re: #219 MandyManners

Oh, you've hit the nail on the head!

It pains me to have done so.

re: #223 Josephine

Shrieking? Okay...

Muslim women have to decide they don't want to be in chains. Once they decide that, they have to turn to the real legal system, they have to organize, etc. They will have to be the ones setting up the booths and risking their lives. Otherwise, non-Muslims doing this work will be attacked and killed by Muslim men and women and the Muslims policing those neighbourhoods won't lift a finger to protect them.

Any woman takes this on will be killed--be she Mulism or infidel. And, it won't be just the Muslims policing those neighborhoods who refuse to protect them. It will be the police. They'll arrest them on some cocked-up charges of discrimination or iniciting violence against a religion.

re: #201 wildcat84

The test will be if accepting Sharia courts as OBLIGATORY is compulsory or consensual. My bet is the former.

Once you remove the people's absolute right to the law, you've removed the law.

wildcat -

WHAT I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SAY WOULD BAN ME. TAKE IT FROM THERE.

-S-

re: #232 Alouette

The issue with halachic courts is they will order an abusive husband to divorce his wife, he refuses to obey the edict, and there is no authority to enforce it.

Actually, part of this scheme is that the halachic/Sharia (whatever halachic is if it's different) court judgments are enforceable by the British system - just as a British civil court judgment.

re: #238 brickthruplateglasswindow

Its a possibility. If the markets open down 500 points, I think all trading may be halted by mid-day.

Idiots.

this is so disturbing,
it's like tired old britain has just shrugged it's shoulders and finally given in.
and what will they capitulate to next.

re: #236 buzzsawmonkey

*whack*

re: #209 Dr. Shalit

"wildcat" -

Whadda Thought! Islamic WOMEN with MACHINE GUNS, taking CONTROL of the General Bullshit!

-S-

Be careful what you wish for. There have been plenty of cases of women suicide bombers. Give them all machine guns and they might very well turn them on you.

re: #229 callahan23

I couldn't agree more and the links between the Nazis and the ROP are very well documented.
Ayatola Khomeini in his youth was an avid listener of the shortwave radio-propaganda in Farsi from a station close to Berlin.
A leading Nazi propagandist fled after WWII and started printing the atrocious historical-lie "The Protocols of ..." in the arab translation in Cairo and this smear-book is a top seller in many muslim countries to this day. So much so as those same texts are mirrored prominently in the agendas of Muslim-Brotherhood, Hamas, the PLO and are being taught in various universities. etc. pp.

The similarities between mainstream mohammedism and Nazi, germany cannot be denied.

Though officially the murderers are a "minority" they are supported either overtly or even worse, by inaction, by the VAST majority.

Unfortunately the West lacks the intestinal fortitude to take on the greatest threat to the world since Hitler, defeat it, and engage in "De-islamification" as it did to defeating the Nazis in Germany.

re: #151 livefreeor die

They need to be educated and armed.

In Great Britain:

1) They go to school, they have access to television and the internet.

2) The general population does not have the right to bear arms.

So are they putting the gallows in Wembeley and the chopping block in Wimbeldon or vice versa?

I'm scared, and I'm not ashamed to say so.

re: #244 MandyManners

Any woman takes this on will be killed--be she Mulism or infidel. And, it won't be just the Muslims policing those neighborhoods who refuse to protect them. It will be the police. They'll arrest them on some cocked-up charges of discrimination or iniciting violence against a religion.

You're probably right - in which case it won't matter too much to her which Court she was in.

re: #92 Bubbaman

What I find so inconceivable is that this is the same country when facing certain destruction by the Nazis - The Luftwaffe annihilating British cities nightly and U-boats strangling its coastline - the British people persevered and remained steadfast. Now, they submit like they're French. How pathetic!

Genetic damage. Think about it. In war, the strongest, ablest, bravest men go off to fight leaving the weak, old, infirm, sickly and cowardly behind. So far, so good. But a severe war doesn't just end in defeat, but prolonged genetic damage, as those best able to reproduce lay dead on the fields of Belgium and France (or wherever).

Take France. Before Napoleon you might win, lose, or eke out a a draw, but you were in for a fight no matter how it turned out. Post-Napoleon, they can't buy a meaningful victory (and Lord knows they tried).

The Napoleonic Wars, WWI, WWII, and the Soviet Tyranny have so thoroughly damaged Europe that now, only the genetic dregs remain. They're too tired, too weak, too old, too cowardly, and/or too cynical to defend themselves.

So, except for the fascists, and the few decent ones left, they won't. Which is why I argued so passionately for not closing the door on the fascisti - it might be them or nothing.

Jolly good show, carry on...

re: #192 Dublin(CA)Dude

OT,

Is everyone prepared for the market meltdown coming tomorrow? Lehman is going into bankrupcty, Merrill Lynch is hoping to be aquired by Bank of America, if they are lucky, and AIG is in serious trouble. This could be a major collapse of markets in the making. Look for the Dow to lose 500 to 1000 points tomorrow.

Ugh. Not only is this huge financially, but it gives lots of red meat...er...free-range arugula to the anti-capitalist crowd.

re: #213 MandyManners

On a very basic level, putting DV into a civil context tells a woman that the state/the crown considers her less than a person when it comes to protection from violence, that this is just a familial dispute.

I agree one hundred percent Mandy, Muslims may say Sharia law is fair and equal to both sexes, but in actual application of the law there is no doubt it biased against females. For Britain to accept Sharia law with its implied injustice to women is insanity. Especially for domestic violence, something Islam has refused to address.
/A sad day to British!

re: #222 buzzsawmonkey

I'm sure she doesn't come quietly either.

Well summa cum laude ...

What would Ayaan say to this?

re: #153 wildcat84

How can they? mohammedian culture is the last bastion of polygamy. A righteous Muslim woman can get outvoted by her competitors in the harem.

"Free your mind and the rest will follow."

Many Muslims get university educations and are well-versed in their rights. In countries such as England and Canada, there are countless government agencies all offering free assistance and advice.

re: #239 So?

I guess they'll have to rename the Union Jack to the Quack-a-Jack

Or the Union Hi-Jacked.

re: #252 wildcat84

The similarities between mainstream mohammedism and Nazi, germany cannot be denied.

Their main disadvantage is their refusal to learn anything except every verse in their book. Throughout history their stupidity has been their undoing. Unfortunately, Britain has been trying to win the gold medals in Idiocy for the past couple of decades.

To think that in my days the Sun would set on the British Empire...

How the mighty have fallen!