Usual bollocks. The word “sharia” may get the Mail’s readership in a panic, but most so-called “sharia courts” will be dealing with issues of Islamic law affecting individual communities which are of no interest to the criminal courts: for example, whether tattoos ought to be considered haram because they can’t be cleansed before prayer. I’m sure the Mail would love to believe they’re routinely ignoring British law by chopping off hands and stoning people to death though.
Graphic design 101: Underlining is what people who have no idea about effective design do.
Britain is chock full of quasi-judicial entities, from the panels that you have to go and see if you get sent off during a football match to workplace disciplinary hearings, to religious courts of all kinds. They’re all subject ultimately to the law of the land, of course, even if the people who attend them think they’re not.
He put his advance money in an offshore bank account and booked a flight in those 50 minutes. And while I dislike sharia courts (as I dislike Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and all the other make believe stories out there) I would suspect they could not override a decision in a secular court and, as antigherkin has already said, would deal with pretty simple matters. Still i’ve always wondered why the DM has such a dislike for Islam, afterall it seems to be the closet in beliefs to the paper.
Shafiq, when was this daft story originally printed? I certainly second the opinions voiced by Killer Whale and Powerotheimagination.
I’m sure that in addition to sharia courts the dear old UK also has Jewish religious courts, but the DM won’t mention those in a headline. Namely for the reasons cited by Killer Whale.
The Mail has given up being anti-semetic in order to better ram home the post 9/11 muslim hating message. It was a different story for most of the 20th century of course, with the Mail, amoung other newspapers, relentlessly slagging off the Jews.
Do you remember when Dr Williams put forward the idea of sharia courts dealing with issues of inheritence etc? The Mail reported that story and then in a seperate story put RIGHT UNERNEATH IT, wrote about how a sharia court had sentenced some girl to stoning for adultery (or something else horrible, I can’t quite remember). But it was like we know he’s not saying anything about anybody getting stoned, we can’t put that in this story, that’d be wrong and more importantly open us up to libel. But if we just put a dividing line and then write it all, it;s a seperate unrelated story but our fine readers may make some sort of connection all on their own.
ANY religious group can, in ’small cases’ and where all parties involved agree, operate ‘outside’ the usual Courts.
In this instance it’s Sharia law, Jewish people can do it under Jewish law too, Hindus etc etc.
In parts of the UK on slightly more serious cases (like burglary or assault) something called ‘restorative justice’ can be operated.
Again only with the consent of all concerned and outside of the usual UK Courts.
Still, what’s the truth of the matter got to do with it when you’re hard at work on your campaign trying to whip up some cheap ignorant and idiotic hysteria about those scary Muslims, huh?
There is no point, given that you don’t actually have to do that any more and can in fact opt to swear on more or less anything you want. I’ll dig the precidents out later.
A witness has the option of taking an oath or affirming, viz “I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”. Those most likely to do this are probably Christians since the New Testament tells them not to swear oaths since they should be telling the truth as a matter of course.
On the main story, what is a pre-nup other than a desire to get round the normal justice that would be dispensed by a UK court.
Or, of course, atheists. I’ve never been a witness in court, but I’ve done jury service, and jurors also need to swear an oath or affirm. I did the latter, since I’m an atheist. I’d hazard a guess that atheists and agnostics affirming outnumber Christians doing so for the reason you give, since in my experience most Christians are pretty clueless about the contents of the bible (beyond a few edited highlights).
@JohnD…the comparison with the Jewish Beth Din courts is very misleading. Melanie Philips, herself a practising Jew, has stated that the Jewish courts have no formal status in British law. Let it be noted that she is married to Joshua Rosenberg, who knows rather a lot about the law.
The DM is quite right to give this story prominence. It shows the growing strength of Islam in Britain. Most of you are quite happy to see Islam grow stronger, which makes a mockery of your pretensions to believe in a more progressive and enlightened society.
I’m still confused though. Why do the DM dislike Islam so much? I mean reading through the Qur’an the ideas on women, wars, sex, relationships, citizenship, law/justice and god often seem as if they would not be out of place in the pages of the DM, whereas the Christian NT (the OT is a whole other story…) and the (supposed) words of Jesus seem to be a stark odds with what is often published in the DM, ‘turn the other cheek’ anyone?
Do Sharia courts have more of a formal status than Beth Din courts? If not, then your point is irrelevant.
And not all of us are “quite happy to see Islam grow stronger”, I personally believe that ALL religions are ludicrous. But what I don’t like is racisl/religious prejudice dressed up as news.
The irony is that the right-wing hate squad and the nutter Islamic fundy gang need each other and feed off of each other.
They each hope it will begin to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Turn up enough paranoia and they expect a violent reaction that will drive ‘their people’ into their hateful arms.
In the USA it was once all the same sh*t about race wars and plenty of Alf Garnets here once said similar about black people from the Carribean and Africa.
Some deranged morons just can’t imagine a life where people live and let live and differences are not only tolerated but celebrated, bymost if not actually all.
Naturally the only response the British hate gang have is ‘try doing that in (insert name of terrible spot in ME right now)” as if that is the standard by which our daily lives in the UK ought to be judged.
Of course the idea that British Muslims might be resentful and suspicious of the rest of us because of decades of physical attacks and verbal abuse gets swept quickly by, afterall neither the likes of the BNP on one extreme nor the DM with their casual racism on the other can accept that maybe they have had a hand in moulding the more aggressive attitudes out there.
Equally the lunatic element in Islam that dreams of a British Muslim state are just as closed, fascistic and insane – but with every assault and every idiotic tabloid headline like this their voice finds another receptive ear.
They need and are well suited to each other.
The crime here is that the likes of the DM deliberately cultivate and feed the paranoia – on all sides in this.
It’s really very sad.
Sharia law has not ‘replaced’ British law anywhere in the UK.
To pretend otherwise is a downright lie.
A couple of months ago if I remember correctly. The only new bit of the article is the number 85.
@ DaveyP
The Shariah Courts have the same legal status as the Beth Din courts.
Now, personally I don’t mind whether they exist or not – it doesn’t make much of a difference. But I do have a problem with people singling out Shariah courts and then going on to say other quasi-legal courts are justified. Either all or nothing.
Is there really so little proper news, that they have to recycle old news?
Usual bollocks. The word “sharia” may get the Mail’s readership in a panic, but most so-called “sharia courts” will be dealing with issues of Islamic law affecting individual communities which are of no interest to the criminal courts: for example, whether tattoos ought to be considered haram because they can’t be cleansed before prayer. I’m sure the Mail would love to believe they’re routinely ignoring British law by chopping off hands and stoning people to death though.
That’s 85, just in case you didn’t catch that the first time round.
Graphic design 101: Underlining is what people who have no idea about effective design do.
Britain is chock full of quasi-judicial entities, from the panels that you have to go and see if you get sent off during a football match to workplace disciplinary hearings, to religious courts of all kinds. They’re all subject ultimately to the law of the land, of course, even if the people who attend them think they’re not.
For someone who lived 50 years, 50 minutes is pretty insignificant
I suspect he spent the “lost 50 minutes” writing the “200 secret songs” referred to by the Express.
The man was surely a genius.
He put his advance money in an offshore bank account and booked a flight in those 50 minutes. And while I dislike sharia courts (as I dislike Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and all the other make believe stories out there) I would suspect they could not override a decision in a secular court and, as antigherkin has already said, would deal with pretty simple matters. Still i’ve always wondered why the DM has such a dislike for Islam, afterall it seems to be the closet in beliefs to the paper.
Now an unelected Brussels court called “UEFA” demolishes British justice by banning English player IN HIS OWN COUNTRY!!! You couldnt make it up!
85 – is that good or bad?
Is it the highest number in Europe, or the lowest?
I need the DM to tell me, and then to tell me whether I should be outraged, proud or both.
85 sounds rather low to be honest.
Shafiq, when was this daft story originally printed? I certainly second the opinions voiced by Killer Whale and Powerotheimagination.
I’m sure that in addition to sharia courts the dear old UK also has Jewish religious courts, but the DM won’t mention those in a headline. Namely for the reasons cited by Killer Whale.
The Mail has given up being anti-semetic in order to better ram home the post 9/11 muslim hating message. It was a different story for most of the 20th century of course, with the Mail, amoung other newspapers, relentlessly slagging off the Jews.
Do you remember when Dr Williams put forward the idea of sharia courts dealing with issues of inheritence etc? The Mail reported that story and then in a seperate story put RIGHT UNERNEATH IT, wrote about how a sharia court had sentenced some girl to stoning for adultery (or something else horrible, I can’t quite remember). But it was like we know he’s not saying anything about anybody getting stoned, we can’t put that in this story, that’d be wrong and more importantly open us up to libel. But if we just put a dividing line and then write it all, it;s a seperate unrelated story but our fine readers may make some sort of connection all on their own.
Typical.
More calculated trouble-making misinformation.
ANY religious group can, in ’small cases’ and where all parties involved agree, operate ‘outside’ the usual Courts.
In this instance it’s Sharia law, Jewish people can do it under Jewish law too, Hindus etc etc.
In parts of the UK on slightly more serious cases (like burglary or assault) something called ‘restorative justice’ can be operated.
Again only with the consent of all concerned and outside of the usual UK Courts.
Still, what’s the truth of the matter got to do with it when you’re hard at work on your campaign trying to whip up some cheap ignorant and idiotic hysteria about those scary Muslims, huh?
Oh sorry, I left out…… ‘the bast@rds’ at the end.
Cos this sort of deliberate, knowing and trouble-making sh!te shows them up exactly as what they are, all too clearly.
Is 85/SHARIA COURTS some kind of math equation that tells us why Michael Jackson died?
I’ve never been to court, but don’t they all have the oath to tell the whole truth “so help me god”?
and you point is?
Xenophobic shit stirring as per…
There is no point, given that you don’t actually have to do that any more and can in fact opt to swear on more or less anything you want. I’ll dig the precidents out later.
A witness has the option of taking an oath or affirming, viz “I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”. Those most likely to do this are probably Christians since the New Testament tells them not to swear oaths since they should be telling the truth as a matter of course.
On the main story, what is a pre-nup other than a desire to get round the normal justice that would be dispensed by a UK court.
Or, of course, atheists. I’ve never been a witness in court, but I’ve done jury service, and jurors also need to swear an oath or affirm. I did the latter, since I’m an atheist. I’d hazard a guess that atheists and agnostics affirming outnumber Christians doing so for the reason you give, since in my experience most Christians are pretty clueless about the contents of the bible (beyond a few edited highlights).
Classic Mail scaremongering.
Recycling very old news.
The actual story is that some Islamic communities, solve personal disputes themselves, and don’t involve the police.
Just as say, some east-London, or gypsy communities do the same.
They don’t hold any juristriction in terms of actual law.
Of course, add in “SHARIA” and the Mail probably gets it’s intended connotation.
Get these immigrants out before they cut my hands off!
@JohnD…the comparison with the Jewish Beth Din courts is very misleading. Melanie Philips, herself a practising Jew, has stated that the Jewish courts have no formal status in British law. Let it be noted that she is married to Joshua Rosenberg, who knows rather a lot about the law.
The DM is quite right to give this story prominence. It shows the growing strength of Islam in Britain. Most of you are quite happy to see Islam grow stronger, which makes a mockery of your pretensions to believe in a more progressive and enlightened society.
I’m still confused though. Why do the DM dislike Islam so much? I mean reading through the Qur’an the ideas on women, wars, sex, relationships, citizenship, law/justice and god often seem as if they would not be out of place in the pages of the DM, whereas the Christian NT (the OT is a whole other story…) and the (supposed) words of Jesus seem to be a stark odds with what is often published in the DM, ‘turn the other cheek’ anyone?
@ DaveyP:
Do Sharia courts have more of a formal status than Beth Din courts? If not, then your point is irrelevant.
And not all of us are “quite happy to see Islam grow stronger”, I personally believe that ALL religions are ludicrous. But what I don’t like is racisl/religious prejudice dressed up as news.
The irony is that the right-wing hate squad and the nutter Islamic fundy gang need each other and feed off of each other.
They each hope it will begin to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Turn up enough paranoia and they expect a violent reaction that will drive ‘their people’ into their hateful arms.
In the USA it was once all the same sh*t about race wars and plenty of Alf Garnets here once said similar about black people from the Carribean and Africa.
Some deranged morons just can’t imagine a life where people live and let live and differences are not only tolerated but celebrated, bymost if not actually all.
Naturally the only response the British hate gang have is ‘try doing that in (insert name of terrible spot in ME right now)” as if that is the standard by which our daily lives in the UK ought to be judged.
Of course the idea that British Muslims might be resentful and suspicious of the rest of us because of decades of physical attacks and verbal abuse gets swept quickly by, afterall neither the likes of the BNP on one extreme nor the DM with their casual racism on the other can accept that maybe they have had a hand in moulding the more aggressive attitudes out there.
Equally the lunatic element in Islam that dreams of a British Muslim state are just as closed, fascistic and insane – but with every assault and every idiotic tabloid headline like this their voice finds another receptive ear.
They need and are well suited to each other.
The crime here is that the likes of the DM deliberately cultivate and feed the paranoia – on all sides in this.
It’s really very sad.
Sharia law has not ‘replaced’ British law anywhere in the UK.
To pretend otherwise is a downright lie.
This is not even limited to religion: any two parties can usually agree to arbitration.
@ JohnD
A couple of months ago if I remember correctly. The only new bit of the article is the number 85.
@ DaveyP
The Shariah Courts have the same legal status as the Beth Din courts.
Now, personally I don’t mind whether they exist or not – it doesn’t make much of a difference. But I do have a problem with people singling out Shariah courts and then going on to say other quasi-legal courts are justified. Either all or nothing.