Sharia law in action

[Suffragette1]

That's where you're wrong...I for one support equality for women. Its just when they want to be more equal, or always banging on about how bad men are or talk BS in relation to issues like Slutwalk etc.

 

Furthermore I think you're lovely...

 

A long, long time ago you said you'd love to have dinner with me, bet you can't remember that...

 

Really, your pro-feminist stance must have passed me by.

 

As for the rest - *knee in the balls* - stop harassing me.

[Suffragette1]

Forgive me but I wasn't engaging in any invective from you. There might be many obejctions to sharia law including the ones you mention (I wasn't disagreeing with you-I said I didn't know), but the poster I was responding to wasn't referring to the rights of woman or divorce or inheritance matters. He appeared to be bemused by the fact that an organisation would want to have its own rules when "there are already avenues in place under British Law in the country they've chosen to live in"-I was simply pointing out that such tribunals are not the preserve of sharia courts.

 

Point taken.

 

As long as you admit that I'm right, which I am of course, I'll be happy.

[boyfriday]

That still does not justify the existence of the Sharia courts in my view and many opposed to them are equally as opposed to Beth Din when they came to light.

 

I've no idea what motivates someone to want to subscribe to a sharia or beth din court, but obviously they follow their religion for a reason and if they believe it's right for them it's none of my business to tell them otherwise, provided the rulings don't run contrary to English law, which I've said all along.

[boyfriday]

Point taken.

 

As long as you admit that I'm right, which I am of course, I'll be happy.

 

..is that by way of a grovelling apology?

[Suffragette1]

I've no idea what motivates someone to want to subscribe to a sharia or beth din court, but obviously they follow their religion for a reason and if they believe it's right for them it's none of my business to tell them otherwise, provided the rulings don't run contrary to English law, which I've said all along.

 

Most 'subscribe' because they know no different, or to do otherwise would result in being shunned and ostracised by one's community. Many have no knowledge or access to other avenues open to them and women in particular do not have the wherewithal or language skills to seek alternative advice on divorce matters. It's not a case of preaching to them what they must do per se but one of highlighting that in some cases women's basic human rights are being breached and they are being denied equal treatment and equal access/custody of children which is in direct contradiction of our laws and family policies as are some of the other fatwas on that website. Why should it be easier (and cheaper) for a man to divorce his wife than it is for woman to divorce her husband?

..is that by way of a grovelling apology?

 

Absolutely not!

[Jeffrey Shaw]

As I posted earlier, English law allows parties to opt for adjudication by arbitration if:

a. both parties agree; and

b. the dispute involves contract (= not criminal) law or internal disciplinary matters.

 

Most large organisations of membership offer this. Sporting bodies (FIFA, FIDE, etc.) and professional entities (for solicitors, accountants, surveyors, doctors, etc.) Church Courts and Beth Din are merely seen as arbitral bodies; a properly-framed verdict is enforceable under English law by virtue of the Arbitration Act 1996: see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/contents

[mj.scuba]

As I posted earlier, English law allows parties to opt for adjudication by arbitration if:

a. both parties agree; and

b. the dispute involves contract (= not criminal) law or internal disciplinary matters.

 

Most large organisations of membership offer this. Sporting bodies (FIFA, FIDE, etc.) and professional entities (for solicitors, accountants, surveyors, doctors, etc.) Church Courts and Beth Din are merely seen as arbitral bodies; a properly-framed verdict is enforceable under English law by virtue of the Arbitration Act 1996: see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/contents

 

Hopefully Baroness Cox will get religious courts exempted.

[Frank Sidney]

It may not be very PC to say it but this is a Christian country. We may not bother going to church, but to be a Christian doesn't insist on this. Our history is Christian and I don't think its on to try to change this...

 

As I see it we're in the midst of one of the biggest con tricks in the history of mankind..

[boyfriday]

As I posted earlier, English law allows parties to opt for adjudication by arbitration if:

a. both parties agree; and

b. the dispute involves contract (= not criminal) law or internal disciplinary matters.

 

Most large organisations of membership offer this. Sporting bodies (FIFA, FIDE, etc.) and professional entities (for solicitors, accountants, surveyors, doctors, etc.) Church Courts and Beth Din are merely seen as arbitral bodies; a properly-framed verdict is enforceable under English law by virtue of the Arbitration Act 1996: see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/contents

 

Thanks for that info Jeffrey Shaw.

 

Do you know whether Sharia tribunals enjoy any additional benefits or exemptions under the Arbitration Act that other organisations or professional bodies don't have?

[boyfriday]

As I see it we're in the midst of one of the biggest con tricks in the history of mankind..

 

What claiming this is a 'Christian country'?

 

It may be the box that most tick on the census form but being a Christian is a little more than putting a few coppers in the Oxfam envelope or spending thousands in Meadowhall every Christmas.