It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Britain has 85 sharia courts: The astonishing spread of the Islamic justice behind closed doors

page: 10
24
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Fang
 


This clause here should basically eliminate any Muslim courts.

(a) the object of arbitration is to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal without unnecessary delay or expense;

Fair and impartial means that women should be given equal rights.

The question then becomes, when it is demonstrated that these Islamic courts have failed to act impartially, then what actions should be taken. What about when it is found the decisions made by the Islamic court were enforced against the will of those involved, and that people were forced by intimidation to obey the decisions of the Islamic court?


As I pointed out, if any decision by an arbiter does not comply with the law then it is invalid, worthless, and can either be completely ignored or challenged in the Courts. If the court found that any arbitration body was acting beyond their powers or outside the law, that body would be open to both legal sanctions and civil action by any aggrieved party. They have no power of enforcement and participation is voluntary. A persons participation does not deny or invalidate their rights under English Law, which remains supreme.

As for all this nudge and wink stuff about intimidation, I would remind you that the only time a criminal case has been heard without a Jury was the recent example of a case concerning a diamond robbery. This happened because of repeated attempts to intimidate or "knoble" the jury. The defendants were all white Londoners.
Not a Muslim in sight.




posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


Yeah, Britain is a lot more densely populated than the U.S., so more of your people live in cities. Most of the people in the U.S. live non-violent lives with gun legalization, and most of the crime occurs in concentrated areas.

This doesn't really matter, you are missing the point of my post.

Europe hasn't had the crime problems that the U.S. has had, especially the U.S. in the seventies and the eighties, at least NOT YET, but it looks like the social formula is being put together to create such a problem with the Muslim population.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Fang
 


Decisions by Muslim courts can only be made invalid by British courts if the aggrieved finds a way to get to the British court. By allowing these Muslim courts, they are only making it that much more difficult for a Muslim woman to escape her captors through divorce.

The thing is, British courts would have to find out that these Islamic courts are making decisions that over step their authority, and being that these Muslim courts operate behind closed doors, it is not likely, unless they develop rules that govern these religious courts far beyond business arbitration.

Maybe you don't get this, but arbitrating a business dispute, and arbitrating a divorce and child custody are vastly different things.

Who says they have no power of enforcement? What is to stop them from physically enforcing their will against those who disagree with their decisions? Unless British law is overlooking these Islamic courts, as they should be, there is nothing to stop them from doing what they want to do.

My money says that every time an honor killing is carried out, it has been approved of by an Islamic court of some kind. Unless you are involved in the process, you have no idea what decisions these Islamic courts are making for their communities. The intimidation is going on, either you refuse to see it, or you are part of the problem.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Fang
 


Decisions by Muslim courts can only be made invalid by British courts if the aggrieved finds a way to get to the British court. By allowing these Muslim courts, they are only making it that much more difficult for a Muslim woman to escape her captors through divorce.

The thing is, British courts would have to find out that these Islamic courts are making decisions that over step their authority, and being that these Muslim courts operate behind closed doors, it is not likely, unless they develop rules that govern these religious courts far beyond business arbitration.

Maybe you don't get this, but arbitrating a business dispute, and arbitrating a divorce and child custody are vastly different things.

Who says they have no power of enforcement? What is to stop them from physically enforcing their will against those who disagree with their decisions? Unless British law is overlooking these Islamic courts, as they should be, there is nothing to stop them from doing what they want to do.

My money says that every time an honor killing is carried out, it has been approved of by an Islamic court of some kind. Unless you are involved in the process, you have no idea what decisions these Islamic courts are making for their communities. The intimidation is going on, either you refuse to see it, or you are part of the problem.


I do understand the difference between arbitrating a business dispute, divorce or a child custody case thanks. Are you really telling me that honour killings are being approved by Islamic Courts?



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
It happens all over the continent, i just saw a documentary about Sharia law in my country..especially polygamy marriages happens a lot, that is simple forbidden by law in my country[and i quess every where else]..The strong orhodoxe imams who decide about these marriages also do not recognise our normal courts and judges..So there is it..With that influence the imam's have, i suggest we let them built a raft en let them sail back to North Africa..not welcome here...

[edit on 1-7-2009 by Foppezao]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Fang
 


Only an insider would know for sure, but yes, I would bet that honor killings are approved by certain people before being carried out, people with authority within the Mosque.

There are films of some of these leaders speaking that demonstrate how ruthless some of these people are. You can do your song and dance of incredulity all you want. No one buys it, but those who choose to ignore what is going on.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Thats another thing:
Do you people think [normal] judges should punish honor killings more harshly? because it is not condemned and actually approved in some communities?
Simple for the function of deterrence ?



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jatsc

Why do yall care so much about a new religion coming over it isn't like the one that is there now is the native one.



Actually, the native one (paganism) is actually practised by a lot of people in this country, even if they don't know it.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
islam is a religion and not a race – so no race issues are relevant in my opinion



Now this might just be me but

Given Europe and England’s history of having to cope with christianities oppression (the dark ages) and the fact that christianity is now circling the drain, many are starting to think the chances of this kind of lunacy happening again is over.

But now we find we have another bunch of folk all the way from the 7th century wanting us to take their sky pixy seriously.

So I think the problem is a lot of people in Europe/ England who have ether given up on christianity or where never interested in the first place now find they have to deal with islam which is nothing more than a micky mouse copy of christianity from a few hundred years ago – and they just don’t want to do the dark ages again.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Poet1 you have displayed your zionist credentials and pro Israeli position innumerate times on this boards. With this latest comment, you show your intent to spread hate because you know very well that dispute resolution is entirely a civil matter within these types of courts. It is not permitted this kind of court to break UK laws.

The Jewish community does exactly the same thing with Jewish courts known as The Beth Din which issues approvals of religious matters, settle civil disputes and resolves conflicting religious opinions.

Despite your interests in these matters and awareness of what is going on you instead take a disingenuous position and make a meal of untruths.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by masonwatcher
reply to post by poet1b
 


Poet1 you have displayed your zionist credentials and pro Israeli position innumerate times on this boards. With this latest comment, you show your intent to spread hate because you know very well that dispute resolution is entirely a civil matter within these types of courts. It is not permitted this kind of court to break UK laws.

The Jewish community does exactly the same thing with Jewish courts known as The Beth Din which issues approvals of religious matters, settle civil disputes and resolves conflicting religious opinions.

Despite your interests in these matters and awareness of what is going on you instead take a disingenuous position and make a meal of untruths.


Ah ha! Thanks for that Masonwatcher, it all falls into place now. One interesting thing about the Beth Din courts was that is was pressure from Parliament and social commentators that led to a them taking a more active and even handed role in divorce matters. It was a common problem for many orthodox Jewish women never be granted a divorce by the husbands, despite the fact that that the marriage was over and their husbands had often deserted the family home. The refusal of a divorce meant the husbands avoided their family support or divorce settlement obligations. An example of the English legal system ensuring extra judicial arbitration adheres to Englsih Law. Glad we cleared that up.

[edit on 07/21/06 by Fang]



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by masonwatcher
 


I would ask, how do you know? Do you have any proof to say otherwise that no offence has taken place? How do you know that a muslim womans rights has not been upheld?



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by masonwatcher
 


My "zionist credentials"?


Yeah, well you clearly stated your biases with that one. Anyone who disagrees with you is a zionist according to you. Sorry, wrong, I don't care for religious nutcases of any brand.

Personally, I don't think Jewish people deserve their own special court system either, and really don't care for the whole arbitration system in general, but that is another discussion.

If you want to join a club, fine, and the club gets to decide who can or can not be members, but beyond that, the club's jurisdiction should end.

I consider the positions of both sides, I'm not nearly as biased as you are.

So fang, you also consider me to be a Zionist? Your true colors as but another bigot are showing. While you call for understanding when it comes to Islamic courts, you sure are quick to judge the motives behind these Jewish courts.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


It seemed a plausible explanation for the nonsense you were spouting which could only have resulted from ignorance or bigotry. I was cutting you some slack. As for my factual comments on the Beth Din courts, they were designed to demonstrate how the legal system can intervene to ensure arbitration bodies operate within the bounds of the law. Something you questioned in previous posts. You really need to calm down.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Fang
 


You did a good job of showing how these special courts can be abusive, but that is only more reason not to allow them. Only the people conducting these special courts know how much they are violating British laws.

What you consistently demonstrate is your clear bias on the situation.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


You will find fang is spot on. The only reason you can set up the court in the first place is because its setup under existing British law.

They are voluntary, and if the do not like the out come of the "faith" based outcome they can go to a court of the land


That oversee the body in the first place.

get my point?

as i said be for NOT one law has every been passed in the house of commans that put sharia law on the statute book.




posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Yes that is true, but taking the law into ones own hands.. you got to jail.. very simple..

Killing is not above anyone not matter what faith you have.

And that is a fact.. 2 men A dad and his son was found guilty for the thing you stated in your comment.

They may wish to impose faith based law.. but in the UK we have laws that state.

If you kill someone... have a nice time in prison.

Regardless of faith

It is about mentality of the people, if you wish to have sharia law.. move or do not come here...

we are a free nation we will never let ANY religion force down our necks one type of faith....

we have laws to deal with such radical issues even tho our country is Christan, the church does not make the law.. WE DO.. the people and most people are relaxed and want to share culture understand other views and all play fair...




posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


They do not violate British law..

They are only to facilitate faith.. and we have many faiths in the UK.. MANY

but they all fall under the same LAW...passed by the house of commons NOT some faith based court.

I think you miss understand the words being used..

The main court is the law lords .. that is reviewed in the house of LORDS..

not one law has been passed to make ANY sharia law LEGAL in the united kingdom...

The only thing the courts do is to try and settle it in a faith based way...

But the over site of it is ruled by UK law..

you cant just say oh chop her head off... why? because you go to jail..

very simple. If anyone was to find out such things as forced sex or any other things. The Uk law would treat that as a violation of the human rights act..

people need to get educated on this issue and not fear it.

I take pride in my country and its laws..and it helps to understand them.



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Laurauk
 


People who are faith based will want to go to a faith based court.. its not like they NEED to, and i do agree some people may have slipped in/out of the system and maybe better oversight would or could be better in that respect..

but at the same time any woman is free NOT to go faith based.. and take it to the court of the British judiciary.

No one forces them to use faith based laws, but at the end of the day UK law becomes be for ANY faith based law.

And you can thank Oliver Cromwell for that... who got rid of the KING


that is why we have the house of commons! house of lords over sees the commons.. and NO law passes in the house of commons without deliberation and oversight from the lords..

That is how it works..

Not one law has EVER been passed for sharia law to BECOME law in the great country of UK that i live in.



but i do understand what you say..but try wording it better if its a women's right issue please



posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by masonwatcher
 


well stated


star



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join