Thug watch starts here..................

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

The funny thing about Sharia law, and that the fact that in some states it allows stonings, lashing and beheadings, is that many of these facists would actually quite like these to be punishments available in English law

 

[cunning fergus]

Not quite the case. From TimesOnline (which broke the story).

"Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case. "


All arbitration is based on the concept that both parties agree to it. This is completely different to a court.

Thanks for the article, I had not read it.

Does it not confirm that these Tribunals settle (in law) the outcomes to civil matters? So it sounds like a Court to me.

Are you comfortable that the 'justice' being served given these Tribunals is based on Islamic doctrine and not prevailing UK law?

Who appoints the 'judges', what are their qualifications?

The bottom line is that religion has no part to play in law...............if you think it does you are mad.

 

[cunning fergus]

I remember something about this, but thought they dealt with civil issues, and were more a method of arbitration as opposed to 'law'.

Not according to the National Secular Society:

The One Law for All campaign — supported by the National Secular Society — is to be launched in the House of Lords on International Human Rights Day, 10 December.

According to campaign organiser, Maryam Namazie, “Even in civil matters, Sharia law is discriminatory, unfair and unjust, particularly against women and children. Moreover, its voluntary nature is a sham; many women will be pressured into going to these courts and abiding by their decisions. These courts are a quick and cheap route to injustice and do nothing to promote minority rights and social cohesion. Public interest, particularly with regard to women and children, requires an end to Sharia and all other faith-based courts and tribunals.”

The campaign has already received widespread support including from AC Grayling; Terry Sanderson, Keith Porteous Wood, Ayaan Hirsi Ali; Bahram Soroush; Baroness (Caroline) Cox; Caspar Melville; Deeyah; Fariborz Pooya; Gina Khan; Houzan Mahmoud; Homa Arjomand; Ibn Warraq; Joan Smith; Johann Hari; Mina Ahadi; Naser Khader; Nick Cohen; Richard Dawkins; Shakeb Isaar; Sonja Eggerickx; Stephen Law; Tarek Fatah; Tauriq Moosa; Taslima Nasrin and others. It has also received the support of organisations such as the National Secular Society; Children First Now; Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain; Equal Rights Now – Organisation against Women’s Discrimination in Iran; European Humanist Federation; International Committee against Stoning; International Humanist and Ethical Union; Iranian Secular Society; Lawyers Secular Society; and the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan.

The campaign calls on the UK government to recognise that Sharia law is arbitrary and discriminatory and for an end to Sharia courts and all religious tribunals on the basis that they work against and not for equality and human rights. The campaign also calls for the Arbitration Act 1996 to be amended so that all religious tribunals are banned from operating within and outside of the legal system.

In the words of the Campaign Declaration: “Rights, justice, inclusion, equality and respect are for people, not beliefs. In a civil society, people must have full citizenship rights and equality under the law. Clearly, Sharia law contravenes fundamental human rights. In order to safeguard the rights and freedoms of all those living in Britain, there must be one secular law for all and no Sharia.”

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, which is also supporting the One Law for All campaign, said: “It is a grave error for the authorities in this country to give credence to Sharia in any form – whether legally or in terms of informal arbitration. When women are being subjected to violence in their marriages, it is not acceptable for religious authorities – which are, by definition, misogynistic – to arbitrate. A two-tier legal system, with women's rights being always secondary to religious demands, is unnecessary, undesirable and ultimately unjust.”

Stange bedfellows the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan and the English Defence League, but there you are.

 

[Stoo82]

The only thing the French have done right is to get religion out ot the State.

 

[Aspinal's Body Double]

Thanks for the article, I had not read it.

Does it not confirm that these Tribunals settle (in law) the outcomes to civil matters? So it sounds like a Court to me.

No a tribunal is not a court. A court settles a matter whether the parties involved agree or not.

If two parties both agree to go to a group, body, or person and agree to abide by the decision that is entirely up to them, but they have to honour their word and the law can support this.

The only parties I can see agreeing to go to a Sharia court are muslims. If they are happy for this to happen, in line with their beliefs then as far as I can see that's their perogative. The EDF implication is that Sharia Law could be applied to the rest of us (non-muslims) against our will. This is not the case.

 

[cunning fergus]

No a tribunal is not a court. A court settles a matter whether the parties involved agree or not.

If two parties both agree to go to a group, body, or person and agree to abide by the decision that is entirely up to them, but they have to honour their word and the law can support this.

The only parties I can see agreeing to go to a Sharia court are muslims. If they are happy for this to happen, in line with their beliefs then as far as I can see that's their perogative. The EDF implication is that Sharia Law could be applied to the rest of us (non-muslims) against our will. This is not the case.

You can call it what you like, fact is if the settlement arising from it is binding in law (which it is) then it has the power of a court.

As it is used to sort out disputes, divorces and even matters such as domestic violence Muslims appear to have a choice in who can resolve these matters, a choice which is denied to non-Muslims and an arrangment that has not existed before (albeit I understand there is a simlar arrangment for Jews).

You may well understand the EDF implication better than me but if the view is, one justice system for all, then I am with that view............if it is they are not alone either even liberal groups and organisations are against it.

Seems to me only a religous nutjob would want religion (of any kind) involved in the justice system.

 

[Aspinal's Body Double]

You can call it what you like, fact is if the settlement arising from it is binding in law (which it is) then it has the power of a court.

Seems to me only a religous nutjob would want religion (of any kind) involved in the justice system.

In the criminal justice system, yes.

But it is important to remember we are only talking about CIVIL disputes here. Any Sharia judgement reached on an area of CRIMINAL justice would have no legal standing. Domestic violence is therefore a misleading example. If there was an incident of domestic violence this should be prosectued by the police/DPP. Nothing decided in a "Sharia Court" could have any impact on this.

Muslims living in the UK are subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

EDL | English Defence League

It really is pathetic - a bunch of confused neo-nazi racist thugs who seem to hate their facist colleagues even more than the people they are "supposed" to hate. Make your minds up please......

 

[daveinprague]

Have to laugh at five or six nitwits carrying a flag that uses a word as dramatic and theatrical as Division...the few nitwits in Brighton had it on their shirts as well, or are they just advertising their aim more openly now?

 

[fatbadger]

This sharia law in the UK looks no different than canon law in the UK. It doesn't apply to you or me.

 

[cunning fergus]

In the criminal justice system, yes.

But it is important to remember we are only talking about CIVIL disputes here. Any Sharia judgement reached on an area of CRIMINAL justice would have no legal standing. Domestic violence is therefore a misleading example. If there was an incident of domestic violence this should be prosectued by the police/DPP. Nothing decided in a "Sharia Court" could have any impact on this.

Muslims living in the UK are subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

Nope, you dont get it, where are the alternatives to Court for an Atheist who wants to settle a disputes with a fellow Atheist, or Jedi Courts to settle matters within the Jedi community?

These courts have the power to determine the matter of child custody, this is wrong. How many women are given the role of 'Judges' in these sharia courts do you think?

The Times article also confirms that these courts have been involved in sorting domestic violence cases..............which is indefensible frankly.

One law, one court and definitely no religion.................seems like the National Secular Society and the EDL have something right.

 

[Mendoza]

did anyone see the EDL flag at Withdean last night?



Glad to see The Argus printing a big picture of the flag and associated "thugs" in todays paper

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

did anyone see the EDL flag at Withdean last night?

No I didnt, was it there? If so I do not feel comfortable knowing these people actively follow our team.

 

[Mendoza]

No I didnt, was it there? If so I do not feel comfortable knowing these people actively follow our team.

no it wasnt, thats the point, yet the argus decide to print another big picture of it today

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

no it wasnt, thats the point, yet the argus decide to print another big picture of it today

okay, gotcha now

 

[Flair]

did anyone see the EDL flag at Withdean last night?



Glad to see The Argus printing a big picture of the flag and associated "thugs" in todays paper

Ban the racist pricks

 

[1 night only]

Ban the racist pricks

I think you rather missed the point on that one as they were not actually at the game last night (or at least the flag was not) but anyway. They have in the past and I believe they were asked to remove the flag.

EDL are against Muslim extremism, it started in response to the abuse dished out by a small group of Muslim extremists to returning soldiers in Luton (possibly Royal Anglicans) and it struck a chord with many people.

Some of the extreme right have been attracted undoubtedly (they are not welcome) but the vast majority including a small number of black and Asian members are just British people annoyed at the actions of the Muslim extremists in this country. I know this as I support them (not actively) and know others that do get out there and demonstrate.

It is a very strange day when the Unite Against Fascism are demonstrating against a group of people who are demonstrating against extremists who I suppose could be classed as fascists themselves! The lines are blurred on this but then why bother actually using you own mind and thinking things through when you can jump on a bandwagon as the mugs that turned out for the UAF clearly did. As soon as anyone is proud to be British or English the snobbery displayed by some on this site is endless, Chavs, scum, not my kind of England etc etc.

I hate racism but do class myself as a British Nationalist, it is possible to be one and not the other.

The Argus and some of the small minded people on this site would have you believe otherwise.

 

[cw00]

Home page

 

[cannedheat]

No I didnt, was it there? If so I do not feel comfortable knowing these people actively follow our team.

Every football club in England will have EDL members supporting there teams.

SHOCK HORROR

And no I am not a member.

 

[Race]

Oh dear

cant believe Gus Poyet is peeking over the flag on the right!