Integration going well, I see

[Tattie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16522447

What is there to say?

[Lippytarian]

What is there to say? Quite a bit.

In this country Sharia is not Law. Here it is just a code that some people may choose to live by if they wish. The true Law of the land is available to everyone without fear or favour - nobody can opt out of it and nobody can take another person's rights under the Law away.

Think of this as an arbitration service, a way of resolving disputes without having to resort to the Law. We know this kind of thing is not a problem because quite formal-looking Jewish courts called Beth Din have been sitting in the UK and resolving disputes for over a century.

[John]

That`s a hell of a big whitewash brush you are wielding their sport.

[Lippytarian]

That`s a hell of a big whitewash brush you are wielding their sport.

Whatever happened to a little live and let live? If you think about it, this is only about a group of people going into a room of their own free will and talking to each other. It's really up to them, isn't it.

[John]

You could say the same thing about English law, a few people in a room of their own free will talking together, but look out boy if you dont go with the flow, in this case the flow is the law. Same thing applies to Muslims and Sharia. And British subjects are subject to English law.

[Lippytarian]

You could say the same thing about English law,...

Absolutely not! You can be arrested for breaking English Law, you can be sued, you can be prosecuted, you can be imprisoned. There is nothing at all optional about it! Not true for Sharia. Sharia is NOT Law here. It is just people talking, as people have a perfect right to do.

[Tattie]

What is there to say? Quite a bit.

In this country Sharia is not Law. Here it is just a code that some people may choose to live by if they wish. The true Law of the land is available to everyone without fear or favour - nobody can opt out of it and nobody can take another person's rights under the Law away.

On International Women's Day, in March, there was a huge demonstration in London, backed by feminists, supporters of gay rights and others – including a substantial number of Muslims – who marched under a banner saying:"No sharia and faith-based laws – one law for all." They claimed that the supposedly voluntary nature of the courts is a sham, because many Muslim women are pressured into accepting their rulings, and that sharia courts dispense cheap injustice. Denis MacEoin, author of the Civitas report, argues:"Women are not equal in sharia law, and sharia contains no specific commitment to the best interests of the child that is fundamental to family law in the UK. Under sharia, a male child belongs to the father after the age of seven, regardless of circumstances."

From the Independant

Think of this as an arbitration service, a way of resolving disputes without having to resort to the Law. We know this kind of thing is not a problem because quite formal-looking Jewish courts called Beth Din have been sitting in the UK and resolving disputes for over a century.

*Sharia law does not recognise women's equality, or gay rights, or religious freedom
*Though participation is supposed to be voluntary, women in particular are likely to be pressured into accepting sharia law
*Sharia courts unnecessarily exacerbate the divisions between Muslim and western societies

..........and I'm surprised to see you citing Orthodox jewry as a justification

[Lippytarian]

They have nothing to worry about insofar as Sharia is not Law. And what might they, or you, possibly do to stop people from going into a room and talking? What, if anything, are you suggesting should be done?

If you are becoming a campaigner against mysogeny then that's great, more power to your elbow, you'll have no difficulty finding that in all walks of life. But if in common the knuckle-dragging end of the market this is something you've stumbled upon as a convenient stick to beat Muslims with then that is a different matter entirely.

[John]

So you missed that bit some time ago about a woman being stoned to death and the Princess who was beheaded in accordance with Sharia did you?

[Tattie]

They have nothing to worry about insofar as Sharia is not Law. And what might they, or you, possibly do to stop people from going into a room and talking? What, if anything, are you suggesting should be done?

If you are becoming a campaigner against mysogeny then that's great, more power to your elbow, you'll have no difficulty finding that in all walks of life. But if in common the knuckle-dragging end of the market this is something you've stumbled upon as a convenient stick to beat Muslims with then that is a different matter entirely.

I assume that you're taking the ****?

[Lippytarian]

So you missed that bit some time ago about a woman being stoned to death and the Princess who was beheaded in accordance with Sharia did you?

So what?

The point you are making seems utterly fatuous and ridiculous. Anyone beheading or stoning someone here would be guilty of murder. Obviously. Do you imagine that might change? If so, how?

And the same question to you as Tattie didn't answer: What might possibly be done to stop people from going into a room and talking? What, if anything, are you suggesting should be done to prevent it?

[Lippytarian]

I assume that you're taking the ****?

My point is that mysogeny exists in all sections of society - it is something to be confronted wherever and whenever it occurs. When we see people start to associate mysogeny specifically with their hate-group-of-the-month, say Jews, West Indians, Glaswegians, or whatever, and they use that as a stick to beat their hate-group, well ... let's just say it isn't a sudden conversion to feminism we are witnessing.

[Tattie]

And what might they, or you, possibly do to stop people from going into a room and talking? What, if anything, are you suggesting should be done?

If you are becoming a campaigner against mysogeny then that's great, more power to your elbow, you'll have no difficulty finding that in all walks of life. But if in common the knuckle-dragging end of the market this is something you've stumbled upon as a convenient stick to beat Muslims with then that is a different matter entirely.

You’ll have to make up your own mind as to whether I’ve become a campaigner for women’s rights or a racist.

I have over thirty Muslim clients, 90% of whom are women, and I also have direct experience of the mindset of the (male)Muslim community when it is passing judgement on it’s (female)members. I accept that the experience is localised but would find it statistically unusual if it was just confined to this area of the country.

The questions I would ask are

1.   In pursuit of integration why should we tolerate a system of unregulated arbitration whose roots are in a society alien to ours?
2.   In deference to logic why should we accept that judgements should be passed that are based on the variable interpretations of a religion?

In the link I posted reference is made to the inequality of women, lack of gay rights and intolerance of religious freedom under Sharia law. Try transporting that into our code of law.

In another thread the “gay” issue is being commented on and I have here mentioned personal experience. That includes the forced marriage, the practice of honour killings and the intimidation of witnesses to and victims of crime so as not to bring “dishonour to the community”.

So don’t expect me to see Sharia courts as much more than an attempt to underwrite and legitimise a way of life that has evolved in the “medieval” villages of essentially backward countries. A way of life that exploits fear, prejudice and ignorance and is far more interested in maintaining the power and influence of the Imams than the dispensing of justice.

As to stopping them “going into a room and talking”? Well you can’t, and you won’t be able to until the UK(if it wants to) tries to counter the damage done by uncontrolled immigration and adopts a much more effective policy of integration.

[Lippytarian]

As to stopping them “going into a room and talking”? Well you can’t...

No. You can't. So, again, what are you suggesting should be done? How might you change the beliefs and cultural practices that people bring into the country with them? Not through thought-police nor coercion presumably. If I've learned one thing posting on forums like this it is that you won't persuade an ignoramus out of their ignorance, or a bigot out of their bigotry, or succeed in using reason against a faith-position. That applies equally to the female genital mutilator and the BNP meathead. So you should do yourself a favour and forget about changing anybody's mind about of any of this.

Ours has been an outward-looking, a maritime, a trading and an empire-building country. To come over all bigoted and intolerant of other people's ways when they are drawn or very often brought to our shores is just daft. Yet hostility to immigrants inevitably follows the waves of immigration which are a recurring feature of our history. Is integration just a function of time? How much time, how many generations might it take for a level of integration that you would find acceptable? Or perhaps are you demanding a monoculture?

Do perhaps British Jews provide a good example of incomplete integration where they manage to retain for centuries a degree of cultural and racial separation? How about the Afro-Caribbeans - they used to come in for exactly the same kind of bigotry that is being aimed at Muslims now? Why did that stop happening? Are they "integrated" now, or did the hate-group flavour of the month just happen to move on?

...uncontrolled immigration...

The UK doesn't have uncontrolled immigration.

...and adopts a much more effective policy of integration.

Again what does that mean? How do you encourage people to integrate? Imagine yourself moving to a country like, oh I don't know, Egypt or something. What should you be expected to do, to integrate yourself? Start eating sheep's eyes? Support the Egyptian football team? Or what? Be as specific as you can.

[John]

what are you suggesting should be done?

Easy. A police officer goes into that room and says "You do not have the authority to impose a punishment upon anyone. Stop it"