And the TIREs keep rolling down hill ......

[Roamy]

A bit old but here will be some future discussions for the US as well.
But don't feel too bad Kidney Pies - Holland will be right behind you.
And EKI will probably start a fundraiser for some courts in Finland.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle4749183.ece

http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress....-want-to-know/

[Dave B]

From the Times article:

Under the [Arbitration Act 1996], the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

So not really courts at all, then. More like a way that disputes can be settled with help from experts in the field, some with specialist knowledge of Islamic custom.

That all seems pretty fair and above board.

The article goes on to say "Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act."

So where was/is the outrage about the Jewish version - or are we being asked to reserve our opprobrium for those with a different skin colour?

[Roamy]

A little more reading for you

I believe in one set of laws for all of the country. And if you cannot abide then you do not immigrate or you are deported. I think the real answer is over the long haul the Muslim religion will not fit well in our society. But they seem to fit real well over there. So the answer is that for every muslim you take we will take a jew. Matter of fact I keep saying the answer to the middle east is just immigrate Israel completely. But it would be 10 million in 10 million out. I suppose I would cause quite a stir when I selected the 10 million leaving.

[gloomyDAY]

Way to go Britain!

Sharia Law is now enforceable, so now you're legally giving Muslims the right to beat women and take away their inheritance.

So where was/is the outrage about the Jewish version - or are we being asked to reserve our opprobrium for those with a different skin colour?

Oh, please. How could you comfortable with that last portion of the article?

"In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment. In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations."

Imagine what else is being swept under the rug.

[Dave B]

Oh, please. How could you comfortable with that last portion of the article?

"In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment. In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations."

Imagine what else is being swept under the rug.

Incredible though it may sound, that's probably not a bad outcome. If it had been left to the "traditional" justice system, the Crown Prosecution Service would have needed reasonable proof that it was likely to result in a conviction - in other words the victim would have had to give evidence in court. Now we all know that pressure can be applied, and that victims often change their minds, leading to the case collapsing or more likely never reaching court in the first place. Imperfect though the tribunal may be, at least it resulted in the men having to take anger management courses. It's not much, granted, but I pretty much guarantee you that under the "normal" criminal justice system the case would never have progressed as far.

[Eki]

From the Times article:



So not really courts at all, then. More like a way that disputes can be settled with help from experts in the field, some with specialist knowledge of Islamic custom.

That all seems pretty fair and above board.

The article goes on to say "Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act."

So where was/is the outrage about the Jewish version - or are we being asked to reserve our opprobrium for those with a different skin colour?

Good point. It's like that when Somalis circumcise their daughters it seems to be a terrible human rights violation to some, but when the Jews circumcise their sons it's OK, because that's just what Jews do.

[Eki]

Way to go Britain!

Sharia Law is now enforceable, so now you're legally giving Muslims the right to beat women and take away their inheritance.

But only if the women agree with that.

[gloomyDAY]

Good point. It's like that when Somalis circumcise their daughters it seems to be a terrible human rights violation to some, but when the Jews circumcise their sons it's OK, because that's just what Jews do.

Are you insane?! Female circumcision is completely different. The clitoris is cut off, therefore, females are not able to have orgasms. This is the equivalent of cutting off the head of the penis. Jews simply cut the skin covering the head of the penis.

But only if the women agree with that.

Ha! Like they have a choice. Hell, I bet the next article I read is that a woman was stoned to death in Britain for cheating on her husband.

[Eki]

Jews simply cut the skin covering the head of the penis.

And because of that your underpants constantly scratch the head of your penis, which I'd imagine isn't a nice feeling to most. Rather like having sand under your foreskin all the time.

[gloomyDAY]

And because of that your underpants constantly scratch the head of your penis, which I'd imagine isn't a nice feeling to most. Rather like having sand under your foreskin all the time.

You obviously don't understand the difference. A circumcised male still has full use of his penis and can still have an orgasm (a little chaffing is no big deal). A circumcised female is mutilated, has her genitals literally cut off, and can never have an orgasm for the rest of her life.

These women are completely scarred and the shame of being circumcised causes a lot of emotional and psychological problems. Women don't "feel" like women when they can't climax. There is no enjoyment for them during sex, it's only a monotonous chore.

So, are you still saying that the difference between male and female circumcision don't matter?

Okay. Before you sidetrack another thread, Eki, let's get back to the issue at hand. Imagine when a Muslim female in the UK hits puberty, has her period, and then the father of the household decides that she should be circumcised. She opposes the procedure and is taken to a Sharia Court. The father gets the green light from the court, the adolescent girl gets snipped, and another life is ruined thanks to a silly court decision.

That can happen and I bet more intense hearings will be kept away from the knowledge of the general public. Sharia Law has trouble written all over it because it does not arbitrate, it only abuses.