Sharia Law 'Unavoidable' in the UK

yak.h'cir said:
Did anyone notice the article about Sharia law being refused in Ontario? They then go on to say that Jews and Catholics have been allowed to do this themselves for many years!!!
Click to expand...

Did they give examples of Jewish and Catholic law permitted by the Canadian government? Did they offer cases studies? I would be interested to see them. Do you know of any?
 
Spend_day said:
it may not be perfect but 2 types of law surely they will just create more inequalities
Click to expand...
Ever heard of equity? Yes maybe its not as free standing as it used to be, but I'd still say it qualified as having '2 types of law' within the UK already.

What about cases that are triable either way offences - surely that's two types of law right there - pick option 1 and you have a lower maximum sentence, but more chance of being found guilty, option 2 and you have a higher maximum sentence, but less chance of being found guilty.

What about civil and criminal - two types of law that even have their own separate courts!

We already have many different types of law in this country - the idea that more than one is unworkable or creates inequalities is farcical.
 
I think it's completely avoidable in the UK, don't know why he thinks it isn't. The government may make some bad decisions, but they aren't completely stupid...
 
fini said:
Ever heard of equity? Yes maybe its not as free standing as it used to be, but I'd still say it qualified as having '2 types of law' within the UK already.

What about cases that are triable either way offences - surely that's two types of law right there - pick option 1 and you have a lower maximum sentence, but more chance of being found guilty, option 2 and you have a higher maximum sentence, but less chance of being found guilty.

What about civil and criminal - two types of law that even have their own separate courts!

We already have many different types of law in this country - the idea that more than one is unworkable or creates inequalities is farcical.
Click to expand...

You're comparing apples and oranges. Civil & criminal are simply two aspects of the same legal system; they are not two different legal systems. "Types of law" ≠ "different legal systems".

Sharia law is an entirely different legal system to British law. Therein lies the problem.
 
Considering theres only one Muslim MP, and as far as im aware no muslims in the House of Lords, there is no way any 'Sharia' law will ever happen here. What the hell does the Archibishop of Canterbury know about our legal system? He's scaremongering, trying to get support for the Catholic church as usual. He sometimes comes across like a reporter for the Daily Mail.

Plus, where does the Muslim Council of Britain stand on this? (Note; no 'Great' in Britain according to them). A search of their website for 'Sharia law' reveals nothing.

And besides, the Human Rights Act wouldn't allow for half of the wacky sharia law, let alone the European Courts when someone inevitably challenges it.

Im not saying that those who want it should just leave. I personally hate our tax law but theres no way im gonna pack my bags and move to the Grand Cayman or Monaco.
 
There are already Shariah compliant banking products available and this market is set to get grow considerably.

Anything to do with money and making more of it will have a major influence on what will be introduced into laws and regulations, in a capitalist economy.
 
Hen_Dawg said:
Are you Aryan? And did you appreciate the work of the National Socialist Party a few year back?
Click to expand...

thats a bit harsh. no im not a Aryan and i have never worked for or supported the NSP.
i support multiculturalism. but Britain is going down the pan .the current culture of Britain is drug, booze and sex, this annoys me and i don't blame this one group, although i think we lack an identity as a people.

i do admire Australia for saying these are our laws, this is how we do things.

i think Britain would be better off if it was blind to peoples faith and beliefs and said, this is how we do things here, feel free to do them differently you wont be hindered or exempt or prosecuted for doing them. but dont expect other to change drastically just for you and you wont be exempt from our laws. naturally some flexibility is needed in all situation but i can see this becoming a situation where i name my teddy Mohammed and some guy comes at me with a sword and get let off for doing it.
when i go travelling i plan to learn a few key phrases of the country im going to. also i respect there rules and regulations. why cant people who come here do the same.

we are being flexible for other cultures why cant they do the same for us when they are in our country


sorry for the rant
 
Last edited:
Goldy said:
Plus, where does the Muslim Council of Britain stand on this? (Note; no 'Great' in Britain according to them).
Click to expand...

"Britain" is the name of the island, while "Great Britain" is the name of the geopolitical unit which includes England, Scotland & Wales. The term "Great" is a reference to size, and was originally used to differentiate Britain from Brittany (which is much smaller).

So the absence of "Great" in the Muslim Council's title is quite irrelevant, really.
 
Evangelion said:
This has nothing to do with multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism advocates a plurality of cultures regulated by one legal system for all citizens. It does not advocate a plurality of legal systems.

In any case, Sharia law is a religious issue, not a cultural one.
Click to expand...


are you saying that the law system in a country has nothing to do with its culture. also surely sharia law and the Islamic religion as a whole has massive impacts on the cultures of Islamic countries the very culture multiculturalism is trying to protect

and finally in wasn't a very serous comment
 
I really dont think some religious buff should be commenting on UK law. we tend to keep religion out of politics for a damn good reason. look at the islamic states etc etc etc. pick any country that is goverend by religion and you wont see a very good country at all.
 
Dolph said:
I find the idea very disturbing, we should not be enforcing laws based on anyone's opinion or religious views.

Unfortunately, too many people of all beliefs think their views are better than everyone elses and should be codified in law...
Click to expand...

I agree in principle, but the problem is that laws have to be based on some person's or group of people's moral standards; the question is whose. The law in its current state has been established for the most part by the consensus of those in power over the last century or two. What happens when that group's moral standards cease to be representative of the general population's?

Speaking hypothetically here of course :)
 
Inquisitor said:
I agree in principle, but the problem is that laws have to be based on some person's or group of people's moral standards; the question is whose. The law in its current state has been established for the most part by the consensus of those in power over the last century or two. What happens when that group's moral standards cease to be representative of the general population's?

Speaking hypothetically here of course :)
Click to expand...

yes but if the group is elected by a fair democratic system then surely it will be what a majority of the population wants

hypothetically
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom