Crosswords1 min ago
Struggling For A Title For This Thread
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by -Talbot-. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Eddie, No libel there. You’ve overlooked the bit the headline refers to. She said many Britons “benefit a great deal” from Sharia Law and in so saying she is paying lip service to Sharia Law. Another example of pussyfooting around unacceptable religious and cultural practices that should be countered head on - with no ifs and buts.
You should entitle your question “What Problem? I see no problem”, Talbot.
“that would be to muslim lads wouldnt it
the girls generally have more brains ....2
Er.. no, Peter. Whether they have more brains or not, the [Muslim] girls generally have no say in the matter and jourdain would be wasting her time speaking to them (if indeed she was allowed to).
“So the actual quote says the opposite of what The Express headline says!!!”
It depends what part of the quote you are reading, Eddie. I read this bit:
“Many British people of different faiths follow religious codes and practices, and benefit a great deal from the guidance they offer.''
Which suggests to me that Mrs May believes that people following an alien religion here in the UK derive benefit from their practices. But then she says, almost as an afterthought:
“A number of women have reportedly been victims of what appear to be discriminatory decisions taken by Sharia councils, and that is a significant concern''.
So in other words, let’s not worry too much about the large numbers of women who have been badly treated by “courts” (or “Muslim Arbitration Tribunals” to give them their proper title) which, by and large, they are compelled to use rather than go through the proper legal system. So long as some people obtain some benefits from religious indoctrination it’s all OK. I think your proposed libel action might struggle.
Sharia “courts” (and Beth Din ones as well, so as to be clear) have no place in the UK. Far from being an “acceptable alternative” to the proper legal system, the women using them have no choice at all. They are controlled by the men in their communities, have no access to proper legal advice and so are forced to have their affairs determined by these tribunals (made up exclusively of men, natch). Their rulings are perverse to the proper law of the UK and discriminate heavily against women. The government, instead of outlawing them and making it clear that parallel legal systems are not permitted, grant them official status by making them acceptable tribunals under the Arbitration Act. The Act says:
“The provisions of [the Act] are founded on the following principles, and shall be construed accordingly—
(a )the object of arbitration is to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal without unnecessary delay or expense;
(b) the parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest.”
It is quite clear that, when dealing with matrimonial matters, one of the parties (the woman) is not “free to agree how their disputes are resolved”. Furthermore there is ample evidence that these Councils are exceeding their powers and many are granting “divorces” (if indeed the marriage was valid in the first place) which are not in accordance with UK equality principles. They can thus hardly be said to be "impartial".
The existence of Sharia Courts (and Beth Din and any other similar tribunals) in the UK is a disgrace. They are principally run by men, for men. They operate on medieval religious principles which have no place in the 21st Century. For the UK government to sanction them as “Arbitration Councils” is an abrogation of their responsibilities towards 50% of the population. Mrs May needs to choose her words more carefully when commenting on something, the very existence of which is so disgraceful.
“that would be to muslim lads wouldnt it
the girls generally have more brains ....2
Er.. no, Peter. Whether they have more brains or not, the [Muslim] girls generally have no say in the matter and jourdain would be wasting her time speaking to them (if indeed she was allowed to).
“So the actual quote says the opposite of what The Express headline says!!!”
It depends what part of the quote you are reading, Eddie. I read this bit:
“Many British people of different faiths follow religious codes and practices, and benefit a great deal from the guidance they offer.''
Which suggests to me that Mrs May believes that people following an alien religion here in the UK derive benefit from their practices. But then she says, almost as an afterthought:
“A number of women have reportedly been victims of what appear to be discriminatory decisions taken by Sharia councils, and that is a significant concern''.
So in other words, let’s not worry too much about the large numbers of women who have been badly treated by “courts” (or “Muslim Arbitration Tribunals” to give them their proper title) which, by and large, they are compelled to use rather than go through the proper legal system. So long as some people obtain some benefits from religious indoctrination it’s all OK. I think your proposed libel action might struggle.
Sharia “courts” (and Beth Din ones as well, so as to be clear) have no place in the UK. Far from being an “acceptable alternative” to the proper legal system, the women using them have no choice at all. They are controlled by the men in their communities, have no access to proper legal advice and so are forced to have their affairs determined by these tribunals (made up exclusively of men, natch). Their rulings are perverse to the proper law of the UK and discriminate heavily against women. The government, instead of outlawing them and making it clear that parallel legal systems are not permitted, grant them official status by making them acceptable tribunals under the Arbitration Act. The Act says:
“The provisions of [the Act] are founded on the following principles, and shall be construed accordingly—
(a )the object of arbitration is to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal without unnecessary delay or expense;
(b) the parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest.”
It is quite clear that, when dealing with matrimonial matters, one of the parties (the woman) is not “free to agree how their disputes are resolved”. Furthermore there is ample evidence that these Councils are exceeding their powers and many are granting “divorces” (if indeed the marriage was valid in the first place) which are not in accordance with UK equality principles. They can thus hardly be said to be "impartial".
The existence of Sharia Courts (and Beth Din and any other similar tribunals) in the UK is a disgrace. They are principally run by men, for men. They operate on medieval religious principles which have no place in the 21st Century. For the UK government to sanction them as “Arbitration Councils” is an abrogation of their responsibilities towards 50% of the population. Mrs May needs to choose her words more carefully when commenting on something, the very existence of which is so disgraceful.
No I'm not particularly fussed either, Khandro.
I'm more concerned with the idea that the UK government should sanction such kangaroo outfits and grant them official status. This simply perpetuates the myth that a sizeable chunk of the population can live life in the UK by a different set of rules and standards to everybody else.
Further than that there is no doubt in my mind that sooner or later Sharia principles will be extended to everybody living or visiting an area that has a predominantly Muslim population. Already we hear, anecdotally, of areas in the UK where women are being told to dress modestly (i.e. completely covered) in Muslim areas. There are public swimming baths which do not permit mixed bathing at certain times. Most people say “Yes but it does no harm”. It does. It’s taking away freedoms that both men and women fought hard for. There are plenty of places in the world where Sharia Law prevails. The UK is not one of them and my advice to Muslims wanting to see more of it is to go elsewhere where their views will be more readily accommodated.
I'm more concerned with the idea that the UK government should sanction such kangaroo outfits and grant them official status. This simply perpetuates the myth that a sizeable chunk of the population can live life in the UK by a different set of rules and standards to everybody else.
Further than that there is no doubt in my mind that sooner or later Sharia principles will be extended to everybody living or visiting an area that has a predominantly Muslim population. Already we hear, anecdotally, of areas in the UK where women are being told to dress modestly (i.e. completely covered) in Muslim areas. There are public swimming baths which do not permit mixed bathing at certain times. Most people say “Yes but it does no harm”. It does. It’s taking away freedoms that both men and women fought hard for. There are plenty of places in the world where Sharia Law prevails. The UK is not one of them and my advice to Muslims wanting to see more of it is to go elsewhere where their views will be more readily accommodated.
Khandro, //A Sharia court may allow a man to divorce his wife by saying three times 'I divorce you' and he may think he is divorced, but it would not stand up in a British court.//
A British court would have no interest in it. Most Muslim marriages are conducted in Islamic ceremonies which are not recognised in law. In short, legally these people aren't married.
A British court would have no interest in it. Most Muslim marriages are conducted in Islamic ceremonies which are not recognised in law. In short, legally these people aren't married.
naomi; That's true, but people who live with people have rights under British law whether they are married or not, so a rejected Muslim woman who had lived a long time with a man under a so-called sharia marriage, would have redress over property and goods in a British court as if she had been in a 'civil partnership'.
"...so a rejected Muslim woman who had lived a long time with a man under a so-called sharia marriage, would have redress over property and goods in a British court as if she had been in a 'civil partnership'."
Not quite true, Khandro. Civil Partnerships are only open to same-sex couples and, like marriage, a formal ceremony presided over by a Registrar is required. She would be in what is euphamistically known as a "common law" marriage, not a Civil Partnership (which bestows the same rights as marriage on the parties). Common law marriages, despite their name, have no basis in law. The parties have no bestowed rights granted by virtue of their partership when that partnership breaks down.
Further than that, even if she did have any protection under UK law she would be most unlikely to be able to take advantage of it. As I said earlier, for many (probably most) Muslim women access to the conventional law is impossible as their behaviour is strictly controlled by their menfolk.
Not quite true, Khandro. Civil Partnerships are only open to same-sex couples and, like marriage, a formal ceremony presided over by a Registrar is required. She would be in what is euphamistically known as a "common law" marriage, not a Civil Partnership (which bestows the same rights as marriage on the parties). Common law marriages, despite their name, have no basis in law. The parties have no bestowed rights granted by virtue of their partership when that partnership breaks down.
Further than that, even if she did have any protection under UK law she would be most unlikely to be able to take advantage of it. As I said earlier, for many (probably most) Muslim women access to the conventional law is impossible as their behaviour is strictly controlled by their menfolk.
Yes of course, Khandro. But to secure such protection she would have to rely on UK Law. She would get no satisfactory resolution from a Sharia Court. As I said, many Muslim women would have absolutely no chance of access to UK law. With legislation giving official approval to Sharia Courts many Muslim women believe it is the only option open to them and they are being badly treated.
What happens to Muslim women I find regrettable, but they have to do, and are, is to fight back. I have sent donations to the MWNUK http://
Your actions are admirable, Khandro. But I fear you are p’ing in the wind.
Rather like the EU, Islam does not do reform. It has been treating women as child-bearing chattels for 1400 years and is not likely to change. I’ve only taken a glance at the MWN’s website but it gives me the impression that only a minority of Muslim women suffer discrimination and only at the hands of men who may be described as radical or extremist. This is not so in my experience. I have a number of Muslim acquaintances, both men and women, and none of them can be described as radical or extremist (for if they were they would not be acquaintances of mine for very long). But they all demonstrate the Muslim ethos that women are second class beings with few if any rights and who must obey the men in their lives unconditionally. Female children are treated as somewhat of a nuisance or even nonentities. One of my acquaintances was speaking to me about his brother. “Does he have any children?” I asked. “No, not yet” came the swift reply before adding “Well, only a daughter”. It is this sort of subliminal thought that portrays the true Islamic belief – women are just there for men’s convenience and have no right to a life of their own.
Women in the UK fought long and hard for equality. Just when they were almost there along came a bunch of religious lunatics and turned all they had worked for onto its head. Women’s inequality is now all but officially sanctioned for some of the population. I have a firm belief that Islam has no place in Western Europe and in particular the UK (I’m not too fussed about what goes on elsewhere). I wish the MWN every success but I fear that this country will rue the day it allowed Muslims to gain such a foothold here and have their outrageous beliefs heard and accommodated. It took 800 years to expel the Moors from southern Europe; it will certainly take a lot longer than that to do the same again.
Rather like the EU, Islam does not do reform. It has been treating women as child-bearing chattels for 1400 years and is not likely to change. I’ve only taken a glance at the MWN’s website but it gives me the impression that only a minority of Muslim women suffer discrimination and only at the hands of men who may be described as radical or extremist. This is not so in my experience. I have a number of Muslim acquaintances, both men and women, and none of them can be described as radical or extremist (for if they were they would not be acquaintances of mine for very long). But they all demonstrate the Muslim ethos that women are second class beings with few if any rights and who must obey the men in their lives unconditionally. Female children are treated as somewhat of a nuisance or even nonentities. One of my acquaintances was speaking to me about his brother. “Does he have any children?” I asked. “No, not yet” came the swift reply before adding “Well, only a daughter”. It is this sort of subliminal thought that portrays the true Islamic belief – women are just there for men’s convenience and have no right to a life of their own.
Women in the UK fought long and hard for equality. Just when they were almost there along came a bunch of religious lunatics and turned all they had worked for onto its head. Women’s inequality is now all but officially sanctioned for some of the population. I have a firm belief that Islam has no place in Western Europe and in particular the UK (I’m not too fussed about what goes on elsewhere). I wish the MWN every success but I fear that this country will rue the day it allowed Muslims to gain such a foothold here and have their outrageous beliefs heard and accommodated. It took 800 years to expel the Moors from southern Europe; it will certainly take a lot longer than that to do the same again.
Latest Posts
This Is What It's Costing You Under A...
News2 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
