Islamophobia

[Mr BoShambles]

Mr BoShambles: Would this not further entrench the errors of multiculturalism?

Yeah i guess so. But I do think that there is some validity in this point:

What Dr Williams is saying is that we all have overlapping identities. It is possible to be a British citizen, a Muslim, a Tory and a member of the local golf club at the same time. Each of these identities brings with it rules and it is high time that British society took account of this instead of "a secular government assuming a monopoly in terms of defining public and political identity". ​

Really what difference does it make if people choose to have their dispute arbitrated by the Judicial system or by a local mullah? The result is the much the same. As long as the process of using a mullah is consensual and not coerced.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Really what difference does it make if people choose to have their dispute arbitrated by the Judicial system or by a local mullah? The result is the much the same.

Are you quite sure about that?

As long as the process of using a mullah is consensual and not coerced.

This is the crux, I think. The worst way this could turn out would be people forcing unjust rulings on others (let's face it: women) and then saying "And now it's legally binding, too".

 

[crackerjack]

Are you quite sure about that?



This is the crux, I think. The worst way this could turn out would be people forcing unjust rulings on others (let's face it: women) and then saying "And now it's legally binding, too".

Exactly. The idea that individuals in a relatively enclosed community would not be coerced seems pretty fecking fanciful - so don't give them the option.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

Exactly. The idea that individuals in a relatively enclosed community would not be coerced seems pretty fecking fanciful - so don't give them the option.

The worst way this could turn out would be people forcing unjust rulings on others (let's face it: women) and then saying "And now it's legally binding, too".

Fair enough. Do you both think that this is inevitable or just the worst case scenario?

Edit: And thus a totally bad idea that should be shot-down before it takes off? From what i heard on the radio yesterday these (currently) illegitimate courts are already operating in some places in Britain which kinda makes a nonsense of the whole debate anyway -> arbitration is ultimately about credibility and trust which some muslims are already willing to place in local mullahs despite any 'official' legitimacy.

 

[crackerjack]

Fair enough. Do you both think that this is inevitable or just the worst case scenario?

Edit: And thus a totally bad idea that should be shot-down before it takes off? From what i heard on the radio yesterday these (currently) illegitimate courts are already operating in some places in Britain which kinda makes a nonsense of the whole debate anyway -> arbitration is ultimately about credibility and trust which some muslims are already willing to place in local mullahs despite any 'official' legitimacy.

I think it's far from inevitable. Quite the opposite.

And I don't really care if some places are already bending some rules to acount for some local tastes. There's a world of diference between turning the occasional blind eye and enshrining difference into law.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

I think it's far from inevitable. Quite the opposite.

And I don't really care if some places are already bending some rules to acount for some local tastes. There's a world of diference between turning the occasional blind eye and enshrining difference into law.

I don't see that way. Who is 'bending the rules' or 'turning a blind eye' in the current scenario? If people choose to get private arbitration and all commit to accept and uphold the 'verdict' then there's nothing illegal going on. Its like me and a mate agreeing to have a mutual friend arbitrate a dispute. As long as we both accept his/her finding and he/she has enough credibility in ours eyes to cast a judgement then where's the issue?

And ultimately - as Rowan Williams stressed - British law always takes precedence so effectively no ruling by a mullah could ever be considered binding in a court of law. Thus the whole thing only works if a judgement is given credibility by both sides.

Although i do take your point about the risk of coercion.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Fair enough. Do you both think that this is inevitable or just the worst case scenario?

Hard to say without it actually being implemented, isn't it? I think a good place to start would be a thorough investigation into how disputes like this are settled (extra-legally) at the moment, though it would be a real tightrope walk between between being totally ineffective in the name of 'PC' and demonising or alienating Muslims - clearly the likes of the MCB and Islamophobia Watch would see it as doing the latter, almost regardless of what results it came up with...

Very tricky.

 

[crackerjack]

I don't see that way. Who is 'bending the rules' or 'turning a blind eye' in the current scenario?

You said here

From what i heard on the radio yesterday these (currently) illegitimate courts are already operating in some places in Britain which kinda makes a nonsense of the whole debate anyway

which implies rules being bent and blind eyes turned. But until we're given some specific examples I can't tell you who's doing the bending and turning.

 

[noel emits]

I realise that the guy's considered thoughts have been unfairly represented in soundbite fashion but I love this idea that 'some citizen's do not relate to the UK legal system.' I reckon most anarchists and drug dealers would agree.

 

[Mr BoShambles]

I realise that the guy's considered thoughts have been unfairly represented in soundbite fashion but I love this idea that 'some citizen's do not relate to the UK legal system.' I reckon most anarchists and drug dealers would agree.

 

[mistersloane]

Great minds think alike, I was just searching for something on that, and, in the spirit of Islamophobia, let's go with the currant bun.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article778163.ece

Seems as though he actually did say something close to what they are reporting though, he's never going to hear the end of this one.

I'm not sure referencing the Sun on what he said is the best option! He was just talking about divorce laws and it got taken somewhere else.

The gay aim to abolish the family was particularly good this week


damn xtians revealing our covert aims.

 

[crackerjack]

In school they make education about the holocaust impossible (because they are anti-semitic).

That should read in a school.

A bogus but persistent rumour that British schools are dropping the Holocaust from the curriculum to avoid offending Muslims forced the Government to issue an official denial this week.

The rumours appear to stem from an article I wrote in The Times on April 2 last year which amounted to only 164 words.

The speed and ferocity with which this rumour turned into a “faux fact” as it spread around the globe, via an orchestrated viral e-mail, provides a compelling and cautionary tale of the power of the internet to inform and misinform.

It began with a report called Teaching Emotive and Controversial History, produced by the Historical Association and funded by the Government, which examined the premise that history teachers sometimes avoid controversy in the classroom.

The report noted that a history department in a northern school had avoided the Holocaust as a topic for GCSE coursework for fear of confronting anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils.

Another school steered clear of the Crusades because it felt that a balanced treatment of the topic would have directly challenged what was taught in some local mosques.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article3338009.ece

 

[Mr BoShambles]

You said here

From what i heard on the radio yesterday these (currently) illegitimate courts are already operating in some places in Britain which kinda makes a nonsense of the whole debate anyway

which implies rules being bent and blind eyes turned. But until we're given some specific examples I can't tell you who's doing the bending and turning.

My use of the word illegimimate was meant in the sense that they are not currently recognised by the state. But i don't think they are/should be considered illegal but rather extralegal - private arbitration which some muslims choose to use BUT which is not binding in a judicial court and thus is suboordinate to British law.

Like I said:

arbitration is ultimately about credibility and trust which some muslims are already willing to place in local mullahs despite any 'official' legitimacy.

Therefore it doesn't really matter about what the state thinks of this - while ever people are willing to give legitimacy to private arbitration (by seeking it and accepting and implementing its rulings) it is likely to continue. How would the state stop it from happening if it wanted to? Not easy i think.

 

[crackerjack]

Therefore it doesn't really matter about what the state thinks of this - while ever people are willing to give legitimacy to private arbitration (by seeking it and accepting and implementing its rulings) it is likely to continue. How would the state stop it from happening even if it wanted to? Not easy i don't think.

I'm yet to see examples of the kind of thing the Archbungler had in mind, so it's hard to comment, but if it meant, for instance, polygamy, then it's easy - the second marriage isn't legally recognised.

 

[IdleRich]

"I'm not sure referencing the Sun on what he said is the best option!"

Well, it was tongue-in-cheek, that's why I said "in the spirit of Islamophobia".

 

[vimothy]

Did anyone see Newsnight on Friday? Paxman was such a twat I found myself sympathising with Tariq Ramadan!

I'm still not sure what "sharia law" means in this context. Is simply allowing marriages in mosques? What happens in the case of Jewish law?

 

[crackerjack]

Did anyone see Newsnight on Friday? Paxman was such a twat I found myself sympathising with Tariq Ramadan!

I'm still not sure what "sharia law" means in this context. Is simply allowing marriages in mosques? What happens in the case of Jewish law?

decent piece here

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3342059.ece

 

[vimothy]

Tim Worstall weighs in.

 

[vimothy]

For those without the time to read Worstall's (brief) post, let me cut to the case for you:

Lord Carey, the former archbishop of Canterbury, said: "His acceptance of some Muslim laws within British law would be disastrous for the nation. He has overstated the case for accommodating Islamic legal codes.

"His conclusion that Britain will eventually have to concede some place in law for aspects of sharia is a view I cannot share.

"There can be no exceptions to the laws of our land which have been so painfully honed by the struggle for democracy and human rights."

The giggles [Worstall's giggles, that is] rather come from the former Archbishop of Canterbury saying such a thing. Has he never heard of Canon Law? That is, a different and discrete system of laws within our society that applies to one group and one group only: the Church of England and its priests (and sometimes its adherents)?

Our Cormac also piles in: yet while a Catholic might legally divorce the Church will not recognise that, while a Catholic may remarry after such a divorce, the Church will not recognise that. We already have a splintered legal system.

And not just for religous matters either. To sign up as a doctor puts you voluntarily under the legal system of the General Medical Council, as a solicitor under the Law Society. Many contracts insist upon arbitration clauses.

To add another system of law which people might vountarily sign up to, namely sharia law, doesn’t seem to me to be a breach of anything at all. Indeed, such private legal systems seem to be rather the system.

With one proviso of course: that such systems are kept in their place. A subservient one. ​

 

[crackerjack]

Sharia has its upside too

A Sudanese man has been forced to take a goat as his "wife", after he was caught having sex with the animal.
The goat's owner, Mr Alifi, said he surprised the man with his goat and took him to a council of elders.

They ordered the man, Mr Tombe, to pay a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) to Mr Alifi.

"We have given him the goat, and as far as we know they are still together," Mr Alifi said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4748292.stm