Have the Brits lost their bloody minds?

[Okla-homey]

The nation that gave Western Civilization the concept of secular law and order has thrown in the towel(head).


Britain Adopts Islamic Law, Gives Sharia Courts Full Power to Rule on Civil Cases

Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through county courts or the country's High Court, a part of its Supreme Court system.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a "parallel legal system" based on sharia for some British Muslims.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: "If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so."

General Sir Charles James Napier (1782-1853), commanding general of the Indian Army had a few thoughts on this subject in 1849 when faced with a delegation of Hindu Indians who insisted on continuing their custom of burning widows alive on the funeral pyre of their dead husbands (a/k/a "sati"):


You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.

[StoopTroup]

Not good IMO.

We'll have to watch this fallout closely.

Will we have to bring the Brits to the New Lands of America like we did the Irish?

[Mixer!]

W.
T.
F?!??

[Okla-homey]

No wonder they lost their Empire.

[Jerk]

Multiculturalism.:mad:

How long before they have honor killings of their women? Oops, they spell it 'honour' over there.

[StoopTroup]

No wonder they lost their Empire.

Yep.

Rome has fallen...again.

[Okla-homey]

That stalwart fellow next to Lincoln on Mt Rushmore also had something to say about this sort of shiite:


"In the first place we should insist that the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equity with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace or origin.

But this is predicated upon the man's becoming an American and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American but something else also, isn't an American at all.

We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any flag of a nation to which we are hostile.

We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." -- Theodore Roosevelt in a letter to the American Defense Society in 1919

[Mixer!]

melting pot >>>>>>>> mosaic

[StoopTroup]

If we attack now....

I think we can help them.

What does McCain think?

If he's in...I'll vote for him. :D ;)

[Rogue]

Separation was a good idea.
Thanks to Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries.

[Rogue]

And, just to give props to Catfish...

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120097

[Okla-homey]

Those folks who liken this to submitting to binding arbitration are wrong. Arbitration is first and foremost a voluntary forum. If Achmed drags his wife there against her will, it ain't arbitration in any sense. Its an involuntary surrender of rights under the law to placate a bunch of a-holes who don't care for English common law.

[StoopTroup]

In the name of Allah!....merge this!

[LoyalFan]

I've got bad news for you. It's going to happen...HERE.
Look at certain cities in Michigan. The Muslims are concentrating in great numbers. Soon they will vote THEIR people onto city councils, commissioner's courts, or whatever the local governance is. From there it's on to the state legislative bodies. "Religious Police" will roam the streets. Local cops will be powerless to control them. Any attempt to quash this will lead to a bloodbath,
Once an area, perhaps a township within a larger city, falls to them, all businesses they regard as sinful; Bars, liquor stores, theaters, dance clubs, game arcades, will be closed. All sports will likely be banned. No pork or pork products will be allowed for sale at restaurants or markets. Christian churches, synagogues, Eastern religion worship places, etc, will be so harassed that they will fold. Christian, Jewish, and other "ifidel's" cemeteries and mausoleums will be desecrated and such acts, while not officially sanctioned (yet) will go unpunished.
No woman will dare appear in western garb on the streets of those areas. Non-Muslim homeowners will flee, some abandoning their homes and businesses or selling well below value.
Females will not be allowed to work, attend school, drive a car, or leave home without a male relative accompanying them. Arranged marriages, without regard to age, will occur.
There will be "honor killings" of women and others but no law enforcement agency will dare intrude to apprehend and punish the criminals who commit these crimes.
Local TV stations will receive "anonymous" videos of floggings, punitive amputations, and, yes, ultimately beheadings. And NOTHING will be done about it.
The "Call to Prayer" will be blasted loudly, heard well outside the actual environs they've taken over. However, Christian churches' bells might well be muted less they intrude upon the "sanctity" of Muslim neighborhoods.
God help the Christian church, still hanging on in the poisoned area, that dares to place a manger scene on public view. Ditto for any outward display commemorating a Jewish or Buddhist holiday or meaningful event.
It's coming, and sooner than you think. Our own Constitution, the one they will themselves dispose of so soon as they can, is being used against us.
There are moderate Muslims...good, honest, and kind people. but they are increasingly afraid to speak out.
We allow Muslim schools to exist wherein hatred for all other religions and, above all, America, is instilled in small children. Many such schools are supported by the Saudi government.

This is NOT hate speech. I hate no man, woman or child on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religious belief...so long as none of those factors compels them to impose their beliefs on others.
Britain allowed unbridled immigration; Sound familiar? Now, there are over 2 million Muslims in London alone. Search the net and you will see mob demonstrations IN LONDON with people, some hooded, carrying signs promising "The REAL Holocaust is coming!"

Here in America, of the two presidential candidates, for whom do you think they will vote?


LF

[Jerk]

"Religious Police" will roam the streets.

LF

Maybe a blue state.

They try it here in Jesusland and they'll need body armor...and that won't be good enough.

[Taxman71]

This is what happens when the "can't we all just get along" mindset overtakes the standing up and defending what you believe. Can't wait to see how the POTUS candidates address this issue.

[SoonerBorn68]

Game. Over.

It's time to lock & load fellow Americans. It's only a matter of time.

Thank you political correctness.

[SoonerBorn68]

The country who stood alone against Hitler now cowers in the fear of offending people. Amazing.

[Howzit]

By the end of this century Europe will be majority muslim. Srsly.

So, we've got that going for us.

[OklahomaTuba]

The thing to watch out for is the reaction that comes from all of this.

One major economic disaster like what we are flirting with now, and Europe could be a much different place IMO.

[Okla-homey]

By the end of this century Europe will be majority muslim. Srsly.

So, we've got that going for us.

plus, I could come up with at least 15 constitutional arguments why that shiite wouldn't float here. As long as we have a majority of reasonable jurists on SCOTUS, we should be cool.

[Veritas]

There's a reason I call it "Londonistan" and that most intelligent Brits (my biz partner, for one) are fleeing the country and coming over here.

[Howzit]

plus, I could come up with at least 15 constitutional arguments why that shiite wouldn't float here. As long as we have a majority of reasonable jurists on SCOTUS, we should be cool.

Except for the whole "ally" thingy.

[mynameisjoe]

I think everyone is really overreacting to this news. Here's an op-ed about the issue from a reputable English newspaper

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/lawreports/joshuarozenberg/2957692/What-can-sharia-courts-do-in-Britain.html



What can sharia courts do in Britain?
Islamic judges can resolve disputes by agreement but cannot grant divorces or punish crimes.


By Joshua Rozenberg
Last Updated: 11:38AM BST 16 Sep 2008

“Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain,” claims a Sunday newspaper. The Government has “quietly sanctioned” powers for sharia judges to rule on divorce case, its report insists.

The truth is much more prosaic. The report produces no evidence to suggest that the Government has sanctioned any powers for sharia judges at all, quietly or otherwise. And a sharia court in Britain has no power to grant a divorce that is valid in English law.

Divorce is a matter of personal status. There is a fundamental difference between questions of status — which are for the state to decide — and disputes between individuals, which they may resolve as they wish.

If individuals or companies are unable to settle their differences and do not wish to begin legal proceedings, they can agree to have their disputes resolved by an arbitrator, a sort of private judge.

Unless there are procedural irregularities, the arbitrator’s decision — known as an award — will be enforced in the same way as a court ruling.

Section 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996 says “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 follows that a dispute may be resolved by a sharia court, provided that the parties agree and that its procedures are fair. But this does not give sharia courts the power to resolve questions of personal status.

All this is made perfectly clear by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, the body referred to in the newspaper report. The tribunal, which was established in 2007, says it operates “within the legal framework of England and Wales”. When sitting, it must have at least two members, one a scholar of Islamic sacred law and the other a solicitor or barrister registered to practise in England and Wales.

The tribunal’s website explains in detail how it conducts arbitrations in cases or debt and other civil disputes and the status of awards under the Arbitration Act.

Turning to matrimonial disputes, the website deals first with the problem of “limping marriages”. A woman, it explains, can “get a divorce in the civil courts but her husband may continue to deny her the religious divorce. As a result she may feel unable to re-marry because the community still regard her as being married”.

The same problem can arise under Jewish law, where the woman is known as an agunah —meaning “chained” or “anchored” wife.

The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal says that many scholars consider that the Islamic marriage terminates along with the divorce in the civil courts. But, presumably for those who do not accept such a pragmatic approach, the tribunal, “along with other religious organisations in the UK, can grant a talaq to finish the limping marriage”.

It is entirely clear from this account that Muslims living in Britain must go to the ordinary civil courts if they wish to be divorced. The tribunal is not claiming any power to grant a divorce that would be recognised by the civil courts.

This important distinction is maintained when dealing with forced marriages. The Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 gives new powers to the civil courts. The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal promises to make an “Islamic decision quickly and cheaply” but accepts that its status in English law will be no more than “evidence before the civil court”.

On criminal matters, the law of England and Wales remains binding. “The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal is unable to deal with criminal offences as we do not have jurisdiction to try such matters in the UK,” it says. However, in cases of domestic violence where the tribunal has helped to bring about a “reconciliation” between the spouses, that information may be passed to the Crown Prosecution Service — which may reconsider criminal charges. “Note that the final decision to prosecute always remains with the CPS,” the tribunal stresses.

Finally, the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal acknowledges that it cannot make decisions in inheritance disputes that will be enforced under English law. If one party to a ruling by the tribunal chooses not to comply with it, the best that the other party can do is to “attempt to place the judgment of [the tribunal] before the civil court as evidence of what the deceased would have known and intended”.

There is certainly room for debate — and concern — about the growing influence of sharia law in Britain.

I would be concerned, for example, if a non-Muslim was put under pressure to agree that any dispute over a contract with a Muslim had to be resolved by a sharia arbitrator.

I would be alarmed if there was evidence that men were escaping prosecution for domestic violence because their wives were put under pressure to withdraw charges — although I can imagine that, in the case of a “first offence”, a warning might help save a marriage.

I am concerned to hear that, in an inheritance dispute, a sharia court might award larger sums to sons than to daughters — although I accept that a father could make just such a provision in his will.

Above all, I would be concerned at any attempt to extend sharia law, however indirectly, to those whose consciences are not bound by it — even if they happen to find themselves in areas that are predominantly Muslim.

That would include any attempt at imposing sanctions for failure to comply with sharia law. As Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice, explained in a lecture he gave in July, to do so would conflict with English law.

“In some countries, the courts interpret sharia law as calling for severe physical punishment,” Lord Phillips noted. “There can be no question of such courts sitting in this country, or such sanctions being applied here. So far as the law is concerned, those who live in this country are governed by English law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English courts.”

That principle is so important that we should take great care before asserting that it has been breached.

And there are broader issues of concern here, reflected in some of the many responses from readers to the Telegraph's news report today. Readers are concerned that sharia is becoming a parallel jurisdiction in the United Kingdom and other western countries.

Leave aside the brutal physical punishments to which Lord Phillips refers and look instead at some of the principles of sharia law as it is understood by us in the west. That women are of lesser value than men. That homosexuality is a crime. That apostates — Muslims who renounce their faith — deserve punishment. That those who show disrespect to the Prophet may be put to death.

These principles are inimical to western values. Little wonder that people fear that the unitary nature of our state is at risk if these views become widely held by people in Britain. Little wonder that people fear that the principle stressed by Lord Phillips — that all who live in this country must be governed by English law — is at risk.

As I say, I am not persuaded that the Government has taken any steps recently to adopt sharia law. But neither have I seen any sign that it is prepared to enforce the most fundamental principle of all: that — except in matters of personal conscience — sharia law must always be subsidiary to the laws of the state.


Basically, British law still is above the rule of these tribunals. Any ruling made has the status of evidence before a British civil court. So everyone can calm down about the TERRORIST TOWELHEADS taking over. Also, don't believe what the British tabloids tell you

[jeremy885]

It's a start. How long before they ask for more powers to rule on divorce and other "petty" crimes.

[Fugue]

Basically, British law still is above the rule of these tribunals. Any ruling made has the status of evidence before a British civil court. So everyone can calm down about the TERRORIST TOWELHEADS taking over. Also, don't believe what the British tabloids tell you


You know, I can't believe that article will put anyone at ease. :(

[tbl]

General Sir Charles James Napier (1782-1853), commanding general of the Indian Army had a few thoughts on this subject in 1849 when faced with a delegation of Hindu Indians who insisted on continuing their custom of burning widows alive on the funeral pyre of their dead husbands (a/k/a "sati"):
You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.

I LOVE balls out old school quotes like that.

[LoyalFan]

plus, I could come up with at least 15 constitutional arguments why that shiite wouldn't float here. As long as we have a majority of reasonable jurists on SCOTUS, we should be cool. Sad to say, you see, if the Libs stay in power, The Supreme Court will be populated with their puppets. Then it's a short leap to amending the Constitution to allow those that want to take over America (and the entire world) to make gain after gain.
The libs have already kissed Mexican *** (as has Bush, sad to say,) and they'll osculate the buttocks of the Muslims. They are abject cowards and appeasers. It's apparent that they've learned nothing from Neville Chamberlain's grave error in turning the innocent Czechs over to Hitler.
What they fail to realize, or even care about, is the legacy they're willing to leave to the children already born so well as those yet unborn; Enslavement for most "infidels", death to some, especially Jews.
Again I ask...Just who do you think "American" Muslims will vote for in November? Wonder why?
I hear Bin Laden is planning to vote absentee, for Osama Bin Obama, of course.

LF

[CatfishSooner]

And, just to give props to Catfish...

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120097

gratias...

[Veritas]

So everyone can calm down about the TERRORIST TOWELHEADS taking over.
That's already happened in England. This deal is just a symptom.

[swardboy]

There's a reason I call it "Londonistan" and that most intelligent Brits (my biz partner, for one) are fleeing the country and coming over here.

Well if your partner knows anyone who wants to get on the fast-track to immigrate let me know. I'm a business broker who helps business owners sell their business confidentially. Buying a business in America is the fast way for foreigners to get here.

Can France be far behind with over 3,000,000 new muslim residents? Isn't that the number?

[Curly Bill]

The country who stood alone against Hitler now cowers in the fear of offending people. Amazing.

Is this about SPEK being gone...because I think it is. :D

[Pricetag]

Sad to say, you see, if the Libs stay in power, The Supreme Court will be populated with their puppets. Then it's a short leap to amending the Constitution to allow those that want to take over America (and the entire world) to make gain after gain.
Dude, are you talking about the Constitution of the United States? It hasn't been amended since 1992, and it was 20 years before that since the last amendment. The last failed amendment was in 1978.

Be wary all you want, but what you're saying here is ridiculous. It is hella tough to amend the U.S. Constitution.

[LoyalFan]

Dude, are you talking about the Constitution of the United States? It hasn't been amended since 1992, and it was 20 years before that since the last amendment. The last failed amendment was in 1978.

Be wary all you want, but what you're saying here is ridiculous. It is hella tough to amend the U.S. Constitution.

Well, DUDE, I am talking about the Constitution of The United States. All it takes is for those who wish to surrender/take over this nation is to attain a majority in Congress; For a president either sympathetic to, intimidated by, or in cahoots with, the aforementioned to be elected and there you are.
No, what I'm saying is not ridiculous. All those who desire the end of America and freedom need is for enough people to stick their heads in the sand, vote Democrat, and place their trust in men like Obama, Reid, etc, and women like Pelosi, Clinton, and Waters. Add to that those who swallow the crap spewed by some talking heads...Olberman, Matthews, Barrow, etc, and the deadly cocktail is ready to serve.
What some don't seem to get is that once you give in to one demand you not only stand little chance of correcting the error, you also find that the slope is steeper and yet more slippery. Witness the increasing hordes of illegal immigrants bankrupting hospitals coast to coast, overwhelming the social services, and STILL being allowed to sneak over, pop another pup and thus drop the "anchor". If ever a law needed to change, retroactively by say, 50 years, it's THAT one.
We have the Mexicans boasting that they will soon take over and the Muslims openly stating that they are destined to subjugate the entire planet. Only the blind, deaf, or those in collusion fear not the result.
This is not hate speech. This is simply reprising what THEY have openly espoused and threatened.
Has anyone here noticed the increased Spanish language reporting on ESPN? I have.

LF

[47straight]

Good grief, they're just arbitration systems.



<And the constitution gets amended everytime Kennedy swings the other way. :) >

[Blue]

I don't know about you, but it makes me want to commit some hate crimes.

[Fraggle145]

How similar is this situation to law in native american tribes?

[pott_2]

I can chime in here with some insider information. Insider meaning that I currently live the land of RPGs and the home of Bin Laden. There are currently over 77,000 Yemen/Americans living here in Yemen. That is in addition to millions currently living in the U.S. These numbers are very small comapared to other Middle Eastern countries. Our liberal immigration laws makes immigration very easy. Furthermore, they are all receiving benifits from OUr governement. Most of which goes overseas to support terrorism or families (no particular order). Start writing you congress rep now because the same bad Brit decision will be one of our bad decissions in the future. Immigration laws need reform. Just my thoughts based on what I see.

[Blue]

How similar is this situation to law in native american tribes?


I would say not much considering Native Americans aren't multiplying like freakin cockroaches.

[47straight]

How similar is this situation to law in native american tribes?

I'd say quite different. Homey knows tons more on Indian law than I would (I assume), but the tribes have some level of sovereignty. The british courts recognizing islamic law are essentially recognizing an arbitration (which happens to be based on islamic law). Courts always have the ability to reject that arbitration if it goes against some thresholds in law. Or, the courts could be applying Islamic law if that is what two parties agreed to.

For example, you and I could enter a contract. In that contract, we could agree that any disputes would be settled by an arbitrator. We could specify that the arbitrator would be anyone from a particular arbitration service, or perhaps any graduate of the Ringling Bros. clown school, provided he or she graduated in the top half of their class.

We could also specify that all disputes would be settled under the laws of the state of Texas, or maybe under the laws of a province in Mongolia. We can contract it to our hearts content.


So, tribes have actual jurisdiction over some things because they are to some degree sovereign. The 'islamic courts' don't have actual jurisdiction. They just happen to be where parties are agreeing to resolve their disputes.


And of course I'm oversimplifying all this.

[Okla-homey]

How similar is this situation to law in native american tribes?

Not at all. Short explanation: Tribes are sovereign entities that predate the establishment of the United States. When tribes ceded or otherwise lost territory to white incursion, they reserved certain rights to self-governance on the land the tribe retained. That's why we call them "reservations."

That's a far cry from caving to Achmed's demands that he must be afforded the right to have his case decided by some mullah who will not apply English law, but instead will apply Koranic law.

[LoyalFan]

Homey,

Verily, thou hast spake well and true.
I suspect the Brits caved to this "first little demand" ("Oh, by the beard of the Prophet! We promise we will ask for nothing more"...riiiight!) partly because of the the fear of mob violence.
Can you imagine the able-bodied, meaning those old enough to wear a bomb or carry a gun, among the two million you-know-whats in the immediate London area deciding to take over the city? It would be a bloodbath of beyond-epic scope and might well trigger similar and simultaneous acts in France, The Netherlands, Denmark, Spain, and God knows where else...Dearborn?
With the number of Muslims in the Brit military comes the spectre of a repeat of the Sepoy Rebellion.
Like the scenario?
About the "other" invaders. Make a visit to South Texas, particularly the once-Utopian Rio Grande (AKA Rio Bravo) Valley, Laredo, Eagle Pass, El Paso, or Brownsville. Take a look around. Carefully note how many neighborhoods are indistinguishable from the crime-ridden squalor just across the river. They're every bit so safe too.
Make a visit to the local hospitals. Take your proof of insurance, although it may be hours before YOU are even looked at because of the mob of mostly uninsureds, many illegals among them, clamoring for their "rights" while bankrupting the hospital.
Take your life in your hands and drive around the area. If someone does collide with you, don't bother to ask for their proof of coverage, though it's required by Texas law.
For the ultimate treat drop into the WalMart in Weslaco or any of the Valley towns. Need some groceries? You'll love the supermarkets.
For a change of pace take a tour of the plush (and highly guarded) neighborhoods where the architecture and ostentation will amaze you and the number of Cadillac Escalades would gladden a GM stockholder's heart.
Note the names of the politicians, school officials, officeholders, police chiefs, etc, then peruse, over a period of a few months, the lists of those indicted for corruption and other crimes. Some names will seem very familiar.
As a result of the leaking border, some diseases we had whipped are making a comeback in the Valley...Polio, Dengue Fever, and even Measles.
The air quality leaves much to be desired, thanks to the virtually never-ending fog of toxicity the usual prevailing winds waft across the river from Mexico.
If Red, White, Green, snakes and eagles tickle your fancy, rejoice! You'll see enough of those flags ON THIS SIDE OF THE RIVER to delight you.
Again, I hate NO person for their race, origins, or whatever, so long as their presence does not diminish this great nation and they do not boast that they're going to take over and impose their beliefs on the rest of us OR turn the US into the same crime-ravaged hell hole from whence they came.
Y'know, I feel great sorrow for those immigrants who came here legally in order to better themselves, be AMERICANS, and contribute to the general good. Their American Dream is being shattered.
Now, instead of supporting English as America's language, Obama wants us all to learn Spanish. Like having that imposed on you? Vote you-know-what.

LF

[MrJimBeam]

Guess I better travel to London before they ban foreign guest.

[Fraggle145]

Not at all. Short explanation: Tribes are sovereign entities that predate the establishment of the United States. When tribes ceded or otherwise lost territory to white incursion, they reserved certain rights to self-governance on the land the tribe retained. That's why we call them "reservations."

That's a far cry from caving to Achmed's demands that he must be afforded the right to have his case decided by some mullah who will not apply English law, but instead will apply Koranic law.

Thanks.