If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/law_in_action/6191416.stm
I bought The Times today as I often do. It shares the same editorial line as The Sun, and often leads with the same story. And yet I'll happily criticise The Sun for the piece of shit it is, and I buy The Times more than any other newspaper. I don't criticise The Sun, The Mail and The Mirror for their political opinion, I criticise them for their hysteria, hyperbole and gross exaggeration of anything in order to provoke a reaction. My Times today has the headline, "Archbishop argues for Islamic law in Britain," whereas The Sun runs with, "What a Burka." Spot the difference?
You simply don't see broadsheets claiming immigrants eat our swans or that asylum seekers get given free houses, cars and massive benefits (unless they are repeating what the tabloids report). All those are lies specifically fabricated by certain tabloids to turn public opinion against certain groups. That is shit-stirring at its worst.
Anyone who seriously claims the Guardian (or Telegraph; or Times; or Independent) is no different to or better than the tabloids is as deluded as he's wrong.
Sharia law is a backwards, bat-shit crazy system of laws based on archaic and oppressive texts. All this "if the Muslims want adhere to it then why shouldn't they" is complete nonsense. No woman in her right mind would want to be subjected to Sharia law.
I, for one, am glad that MPs have immediately shot this down and identified it as the utter fucking tripe that it is.
Cue lots of cheering, etc. Does anyone want to explain 'British values'?
Whatever the current laws say, presumably. Prohibition of drugs, blasphemy but only against the CofE god, every man must have an hour of longbow training a day, legal to shoot a scotsman in York or a Welshman in Chester, except on a Sunday. You know, all the laws on the books.
ETA: sorry I'm mistaken, that's two hours of longbow practice a day.
Fair do surely...
Roll on the crates of alcohol!!
There shouldn't be any paralell religious courts or arbitration services available to any religious faith.
That and people don't understand what people actually mean when they say they want sharia law.
Why not? Jews have access to normal courts, they can use the normal law, but they (on occasion) decide not to. This I presume saves the tax payer money and may well get a better result. What is your objection?
Anyone, of any denomination or none at all, can (and indeed should) try to solve disputes as amicably as possible without going to court. Nothing wrong with people getting in a room with a mediator and try to reach an agreement on whichever dispute they have. From that point of view it doesn't matter if it is a rabbi, iman or your mate from football who acts as a mediator.
But if the dispute is not solved amicably by all parties, such mediation arrangements should not be able to make legally binding judgements, or act as a replacement for the legal system.
Is this how the Jewish system works and how some Muslim's want the system to work?
Because if it is, God definitely appeared to me last night and told me how the other religions have been getting it all wrong......
So they should be able to mediate, to decide between two parties whats best - but it should have no legal basis. How generous of you to allow people to discuss issues in private.
What exactly is your objection to two parties of Jews or Muslims coming together and deciding the outcome of a disputed contract or marraige?
I'm not arguing for criminal sharia law, and the Arch Bishop wasnt either. But just a more localised dispute settling arrangement which they find more effective. It works fine for Jews at the moment with virtually no one causing a fuss, its only now it might also include Muslims that everyone is getting all worked up - I can only assume thats because they are Muslims and therefore they must be bonkers.
Did you read the link I posted?
What's to stop them doing that at the moment?
To what extent would you allow, presumably any arbitrary group, to operate a dual legal system?
That's what he is suggesting for Muslims; Jews still have to get a divorce under English law for the divorce to be recognised by the State.
So a separate legal system for a group in certain areas then?
The harm it does is that it creates one law for some people and a different law for other people - on issues such as marriage. Rather than improving social cohesions, it will balkanise Britain and increase tensions. Sure this will start with things like marriage and divorce, but it's a slippery slope.
What's wrong with the situation as it is?
I dont know, the link I posted explains a lot better than I can how this works at the moment.
I can see peoples objections, the idea of one set of laws for all is a good one, I just personally cant really see what the fuss is all about if certain groups want to resolve their disputes in a different way. As long as it is done properly and objectively.
I guess what immediately makes me suspicious of the whole thing is: what is it certain Muslims want to be able to do legally, that they can't do already?
- that and the fact most religious law i've come into contact with, or heard about, is bat-shit insane.
I guess one objection is that while the laws of this land might not be perfect they try to be as fair and impartial as possible to everyone. Frankly, I fear alternative courts might not be as fair to some parties, and that individuals belonging to those faiths might be pressurised to 'stick with their own' and subject themselves to the ruling of the religious council, when they might have been received a fairer treatment and judgement had they gone through the estbalished British legal system.
Of course, and there must be some sort of system in place to stop that happening, appeals or whatever.
Like I've said, the link I posted and the show itself explains the whole thing a lot better than I can.
Give me some attention please, I am not getting enough of it. Publicity please!
OH LOOK! I said something controversial! Yay! The Media are giving me attention.
I really do swear that is how this guy's mind works.
***audience member reads out a question that no one can hear***
Aladdin: Let me repeat that aimlessly for no other reason than we have 50 minutes of Radio 4 airtime to fill. Question to Stargalaxy. The other day you were rambling about the National Secular Society being a bunch of crackpots. In view of this story, don't you think they're the sane ones and everyone else the crackpots?
Stargalaxy: *laughter* Good evening, Aladdin. First of all, I'm going to use the ultimate distraction tactic that every politician of every party uses by flattering you to such a degree that you forget what you asked me in the first place. May I just state what a clever choice your brand new avatar is. Unfortunately, I'm unable to make any other comment regarding that particular newspaper, as I said earlier this week that I was giving up rants about them until Easter. May I also take this opportunity to complement you on your choice of tie this evening, and I also offer to buy you a drink when we go to the bar after the show...
Regarding the issue that the member in the audience raises, I was led to believe that the Archbishop of Canterbury was meant to stand up on behalf of Christians. To my certain knowledge, sharia law has nothing to do with Christianity, so what was he doing talking about this in the first place? My opinion is simply this - I can think of a million more important issues right now. Come back to me when the prospect of sharia law being introduced to the UK increases to over 0%.
Aladdin: Thank you, Stargalaxy. I always marvel at your total inability to answer a straightforward question.
Stargalaxy: I'm a professional, that's my job.
*waits ten years. Jim V has officially become "God Of The Universe And All Beyond It", (to use his full, official title now) Budda has just celebrated his 300th birthday and Stargalaxy is still a pain in the arse who complains about arcade machines not working properly*
In answer to your question, the National Secular people are nuts, and the Archbishop seems to be a few sandwiches short too. Now, do you fancy a drink? I can't drink all 24 of these Carlsberg bottles. They've been here since Christmas, you know...
But anyway, some of the reactions this morning have been absolutely pathetic. Calls for him to resign for making a suggestion and giving an opinion. I think the only thing that the archbishop has highlighted is the anti-muslim sentiment in this country, with borderline furious responses from people who clearly haven't understood his suggestions at all.
When you listen to the AoC interview he doesn't say very much of anything. He's really wishy-washy and wanks on about how "there's a lot of disagreement between Muslim's about what Sharia Law is" when he's confronted with the long list of barbarous rulings passed under Sharia Law.
The the law itself is based around archaic text. It has no place in a modern, secular democracy. I can't imagine any woman who'd choose to enter into Sharia dispute resolution rather than take the law of the land.
And before anyone tries to infer i have anti-Muslim views, i'd be equally vehement about the danger of a legal system based on the morality of the Old Testament.