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
Islamic and Jewish law courts
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6190080.stm
"Aydarus Yusuf has lived in the UK for the past 15 years, but he feels more bound by the traditional law of his country of birth - Somalia - than he does by the law of England and Wales."
Erm .. then go back to Somalia?
Isn't the fact that what makes us a 'special' country for outsiders to seek refuge here is that our laws are not bogged down by religious dogma?
"Aydarus Yusuf has lived in the UK for the past 15 years, but he feels more bound by the traditional law of his country of birth - Somalia - than he does by the law of England and Wales."
Erm .. then go back to Somalia?
Isn't the fact that what makes us a 'special' country for outsiders to seek refuge here is that our laws are not bogged down by religious dogma?
0
Comments
However, the demands of some 40% of Muslims for the introduction of Sharia law in predominately Muslim areas is completely unacceptable. (I have heard of no orthodox Jews demanding Halakha in Golders Green but that would be similarly unacceptable)
And the calls of some of Britain's Islamic scholars for Sharia law to be applied in British courts on areas such as family and inheritance is unacceptable. If Muslims want to live in a country with a national legal system that incorporates Islamic law they should move to an Islamic state.
Any move towards a situation where British courts can apply different laws depending on religion must be rejected.
Several cases here in the UK have collapsed because of people being paid off in this way.
As long as English law overrides anything else, I can't see that it really matters. Although with lenient sentences I can understand why people want to take things into their own hands. And there is a danger of communities becoming closed.
Isn`t that an improvement ?
I was involved in a case like that and I personally feel it worked out better than if the guy had been sent to prison. But in some cases, for example if a man raped a child and he paid off the victim's family that would be very wrong.
Why ?
Because it would allow rich people to commit terrible crimes knowing that they could just pay off the family and get away with it.
:yes: And most people probably think that victims and their families wouldn't get justice.
Of course none of the above matters to seeker, who seems to operate on an extreme version of "I'm alright, Jack"
I doubt it ... a step backwards in my opinion.
No idea about Islamic courts but the Beth Din (used by Orthodox Jews) doesn't really cover any issues where someone would have different rights because they're gay or female. The Beth Din covers stuff like conversion/adoption/Jewish status - and civil disputes if agreed by all parties involved. It also covers gets which enact a divorce under Jewish law - but that is something which would normally be done in addition to a civil divorce.
Interesting.
So you have a victim who has been "wronged".
Let`s call him Jack.
I would say that the person who matters MOST is Jack.
It could be argued that the ONLY one who matters is Jack.
PussyKatty made a point that in some cases the VICTIM is paid off.
Presumably the victim has agreed to that pay off in whatever form it takes.
I suggested that is an improvement (for Jack,) on a system of ermmm "justice" which appears to benefit every Tom Dick and Harry who decides to get involved, but often neglects Jack (remember him ?)
But you can't presume that. If the victim is from a poor family the family may pressure them to take the money. What about vulnerable victims such as children and the mentally ill?
Taking the example given before, a man who rapes a child from a poor family. The family may be keen to take money to pay them off, leaving the man to rape again and 'pay' off his crimes. That could never be described as being right.
I see your point but what is "right" (especially for the victim) in your example ?
An appropriate sentence for a crime isn't solely about the victim. It should also be about keeping the public safe and rehabilitating the offender.
In my experience it is rarely, if ever, about the victim.
That was the first and, for me, most important thing I learned when studying the "UK legal system" many,many, many years ago.
(I also believe that information wasn`t intended to be conveyed to the student;) )
And those have little,if anything, to do with the victim.
I believe that behaviour exists.
I`m unclear by what you mean by "patterns".
I don`t believe that the future can be predicted.
Personally, I note the behaviour of others most of the time. I make guesses on that observed behaviour and act accordingly.
I`d be interested as to why you asked those questions :chin:
If two families are solving a dispute in which one person has been beaten or stabbed and the victim decides to sort it out their own way rather than going through a court of law, then it is their right not to press charges and to sort things in a different way. Obviously the alternative "court" in question should only mediate and "judge" over any compensation money that might change hands as part of a settlement. They shouldn't and musn't have authority to punish or imprison anyone.
And naturally, if the victim of the crime in question has been killed or left in a vegetative state (i.e. unable to state they wish to drop charges) then the police and proper Courts should get fully involved and the alternative "court" has no say or authority in the matter whatsoever.
I'm sure most of the rest of us do, in which case I suggest we put the concept to good use on seeker using the preventative measure of ignoring him in order to avoid his entirely predictable pattern of behaviour.
Under the system you seem to be suggesting though you don't seem to be trying to offer anything in terms of preventing the "creation" of other victims. It's kind of difficult therefore for you to ever argue that you have the victims interests in mind when actually you aren't interested in their welfare until after the event. Bit fucking late then IMHO.
There should always be a police investigation though.
So that`s the reason you have thus far ignored the question in the slavery thread.
I was forming the impression that maybe you were feeling guilty about your own behaviour.
I wasn`t aware that I had suggested a "system".
It seems the problem with words is their misunderstanding.
I`d say by definition a "victim" is in the past tense, and as such it is only possible to have a victim`s interest in mind after the event.
Which is why I typed "seem to be"...
I understand the meaning of irony
Indeed, point taken, which again is why I chose the words I used, mentioning the "creation" of victims and the fact that you only seem to be interested in those individuals after they have become victims, rather than the prevention of that...