Please tell me this isn\'t real!! What are they thinking allowing this?

[mattrock]

Originally posted by Scolar
The truth is that it is normal to private message a user explaining what they did wrong, if I hadn\'t checked back I wouldnt have a clue that it had been deleted.

Anyway I\'m sorry if I upset you

With all due respect, you\'ve snarked at two separate moderators now for their enforcement of the clearly posted rules of this forum.

Interestingly enough, the rules DO NOT state that you will be PM\'d in the event your post is deleted for reasons you ought to already be aware of.

I see that this has upset you. May I suggest that you find a forum that more aptly suits you? Or as an alternative, how about showing some respect to the moderators?

Posting here is a privilege, not a right.

 

[Legacy Account]

Originally posted by Dragonsreach

I\'m in too foul a mood to day to allow a slanging match to start

How often do things degenerate into a slanging match here? Not very...

I just think that censoring that sort of attitude is not the way to deal with it. It needs putting into perspective, then putting in its place. Scolar sounds like a kid who listens to too much media-tainted garbage. Perhaps if he/she had the opportunity to gauge the response to their comments, it might have given him/her cause to reassess their views.

Or at least to perhaps consider what they type before they hit enter.

 

[Shawn R. L.]

I\'ve heard this lady interviewed and I tend to agree with her - coexistance is definately not what many Muslim\'s are here for. http://www.melaniephillips.com/

I think we in the west want SO badly to believe that everyone wants to play nice that we are setting ourselves up for catistrophic disaster.

 

[No Such Agency]

Originally posted by Mr.S.Marbo
Sharia law used on voluntary basis in mediation and arbitration subject to the fact that UK law is still absolute is really not a problem at all when you compare it with the fact that any British citizen can be plucked out of their bed and sent to another country without that county having to provide any evidence of guilt to a British court. THAT fact is simply scary, where as a totally voluntary system of arbitration that has to abide by UK law and can be opted out of really isn\'t scary

That\'s a very good point to raise. I oppose the use of separate religious law even for family law situations (where family and culture can pressure one or more parties to accept outcomes that are not in their best interests). But the threat from \"outside\" is hardly the most dire threat to \"western\" law these days. The threat from WITHIN is far greater - the dismantling of habeas corpus, rights against search and siezure, the disappearance of due process etc. Between the \"drug war\" and \"9/11\" these things have been on the chopping block almost constantly. And who is doing this? Hint: they don\'t wear turbans or abbayas, and they don\'t pray towards Mecca.

 

[generulpoleaxe]

Originally posted by Shawn R. L.
I\'ve heard this lady interviewed and I tend to agree with her - coexistance is definately not what many Muslim\'s are here for. http://www.melaniephillips.com/

I think we in the west want SO badly to believe that everyone wants to play nice that we are setting ourselves up for catistrophic disaster.

most are groomed on the internet mate at an earlyish age (mid teens) nowadays.
they are young and impressionable.
it\'s how paedophiles work, it\'s twisted and people blaming religion for it are not doing the situation any good.

ever wondered how many christians are over their killing people.
maybe they joined the forces so they could kill muslims.
sounds wrong doesn\'t it, because it is.
it\'s the politicians playing their little game controlling others economies by using their national defense (and i\'m not aiming it just at the US politicians)

most of the bombers are kids mate, seduced at a time in their life when they are vunerable and used by cowards to fullfill their own ideals (just like politicians)

 

[Dragonsreach]

Originally posted by Spacemunkie

Originally posted by Dragonsreach

I\'m in too foul a mood to day to allow a slanging match to start

How often do things degenerate into a slanging match here? Not very...

I just think that censoring that sort of attitude is not the way to deal with it. It needs putting into perspective, then putting in its place. Scolar sounds like a kid who listens to too much media-tainted garbage. Perhaps if he/she had the opportunity to gauge the response to their comments, it might have given him/her cause to reassess their views.

Or at least to perhaps consider what they type before they hit enter.

Scott:
The slanging match would have been starting from me.

 

[Dedwrekka]

Originally posted by supervike
I\'m thinking there are very similar provisions here in the United States with the Native Americans. And most likely for the larger Menonite and Amish communities.

Yeah, but those are in areas set aside from the traditional US, in the case of the Native American lands, because they\'re not technically within the US (but at the same time, they are).

As to the separate court system, I demand a Discordian court system. Not onyl because the discordians have been so overlooked by the british system, but because it would be funny to have a court system where you can excommunicate the judge, declare yourself the judge and put the judge on trial, or have someone randomly declare everyone in the room excommunicated and declare that the chair the judge is sitting in is the new judge.

Why not, it makes about as much sense as instating any other minority court system?

 

[paintingploddy]

@ Shawn RL - And the western democracies are nice? We support murder, torture and kidnapping provided it isn\'t happening to us or where we can see it. Renditions and Guantanamo bay expose us for the hypocrites we are.

@ Amazon Warrior - From the article:
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.


Sorry but this post is nothing but scare mongering. Read the article. This is not a new law. I quote:
Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.

They are not courts in the western sense of the word. They are Arbitration tribunals which are defined in the Act. By bringing themselves under the umbrella of the Act they open themselves to the requirements of British Law. They have no power to enforce their own decisions. If a party ignores the decision the matter can be taken before a court and a court may make an order. Please note the word is may. The Act also expressly provides for appeal to the regular court system. Far from creating a new law system in the UK, it formalises what has been happening in the community anyway and imposes standards that must be complied with. No one is going to be stoned to death under this Act.

If anyone is actually interested here is the Act of parliament being used -

http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/num_act/1996/ukpga_19960023_en_1.html

 

[Infidel Castro]

Respect to you Mr Paintingploddy. A lovely post, especially about the \'West\'. Cracking stuff.

 

[dougaderly]

If both parties agree, I see no reason not to allow it, especially given the precedent of allowing Jewish courts for over a century. But I\'m not British, so my words aren\'t exactly an informed opinion

 

[generulpoleaxe]

Originally posted by dougaderly
If both parties agree, I see no reason not to allow it, especially given the precedent of allowing Jewish courts for over a century. But I\'m not British, so my words aren\'t exactly an informed opinion

they are not courts, that is what people are getting wrong.
it\'s nothing more than mediators, any comunity can have them, it has nothing to do with religion.

 

[Dragonsreach]

Trying to find a rational non-panic mongering set of information on this is very difficult. Once again it seems as if the \"press\" is more interested in exploiting the potential \"Fear Factor\" than providing accuracy. (There\'s a surprise)

There are commentries stating that Shar\'ia courts will deal with \"some\" criminal cases(?) and others that they will not. This aspect (if true) I find completely unacceptable. British and European law both provide the assurance that there should be only one form of criminal legal system.

Both Shar\'ia and Beth Din are both based on religious structures (strictures(?)) and therefore should be limited to aspects of arbitration which directly affect peoples lifes in respect to how their religon is carried out. (Kosher and Halal strictures, Anti-Usury etc..)

Personally I seen no real reason why either system should have anything to do with Divorce or Wife-Beating issues. (Except to seriously shame the latter in the community).

Diococean courts were closed during the reformation in Britain, there is no need to return them now.