Pages: 1 2 3 4 … 6

 

2008-02-10 04:47:10
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6920|USA

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

It was my understanding that settling " out of court " is generally only done when both parties choose it as an option. Eg, I dont want my divorce to go through a nasty court case , then we can make an amicable decision out of court. Everyone is happy. I think most divorces would be finalised in this way.

As for the assault, the victim would have reported the crime and called in the police. At any point after they have the option drop the case and settle out of court. There is nothing illegal here. The only difference here is that they will probably get a harder punishment.

I see so many cases when kids get violent and people say " why arent the parents taking responsibility of their kids" bla bla. Looks like in this case the parents and also the extended family are getting involved to try and make sure the kid doesnt do it again. I dont really see a problem with this. Just more sensationalism from Foxnews.
divorces have to go before the courts to finalize the decisions of both parties. You and the other party do not decide that you will pay 100.00 dollars a month in child support. The courts set those figures.

The problem here is the lack of respect for the laws of GB and the percieved failed assimulation of these people into western society. They are not conforming to the laws of the land. They want their own laws to prevail above and beyond those of the laws of the country they are living. I am willing to bet this is happening all over Europe and not just GB.
2008-02-10 04:48:34
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6850|SE London

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

"In Leyton, another Islamic council also said it had been handling cases -- more than 7,000 divorces -- while sharia courts in the capital were said to have settled hundreds of disputes regarding money."

over 7000??!!! This does not sound like a "few" people just "settling out of court". That is a legal system in practice, and it ain't GB's. The first example involved a felony. How the hell do you settle a felony charge outside the court?

how many more "isloated incidences" need to occur to form a pattern?  How many "isolated incidences" are you willing to justify and/or dismiss as meaningless?

THe fact is, the laws of the land are not respected and are felt that they do not apply to Muslims. They want to impliment their own laws in host countries, and yet again the head in the sand crowd will dismiss it as nothing.  All of those nothings sure make a pretty big something when balled up.
They are civil cases and are not legally binding in any way shape or form. If either party felt hard done by they could just go to a real court. This is just a voluntary pseudo-legal framework for people who decide they are the rules they want to follow.
sorry, the rules to follow are already decided, it is the laws of GB. Re-read the article this involves more than civil cases anyway.
Yes, they are. This does not conflict with that in any way. If some people are stupid enough to follow the ruling of these courts then let them. If they don't like the outcome they can always go to a real court that would give a legally binding verdict.

They are not courts because they have no power.
2008-02-10 04:52:16
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6920|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

They are civil cases and are not legally binding in any way shape or form. If either party felt hard done by they could just go to a real court. This is just a voluntary pseudo-legal framework for people who decide they are the rules they want to follow.
sorry, the rules to follow are already decided, it is the laws of GB. Re-read the article this involves more than civil cases anyway.
Yes, they are. This does not conflict with that in any way. If some people are stupid enough to follow the ruling of these courts then let them. If they don't like the outcome they can always go to a real court that would give a legally binding verdict.

They are not courts because they have no power.
They are apparently binding in the minds of those that use this system outside the legitimate courts.........Which of course brings it full circle to the problem at hand.......the slow creeping and eventual foothold Islam is gaining in Europe. This is just another dismissed example of that fact.

Last edited by lowing (2008-02-10 04:53:28)

2008-02-10 04:52:54
samfink
Member
+31|6824
erm, lowing, there IS a difference. the sharia courts that do operate are fro CIVIL issues, and ARE NOT legally binding. for a start, if one side doesn't want it judged in the sharia courts, it won't go to the sharia courts. also, what are arbitratiors, if not people not in the court system handing down judgements. if 2 muslims want something settled in sharia courts, I say fine. the courts that are there are the equivalent to non-binding arbitrators. anyway, if a victim doesn't want charge4s pressed, they won't be pressed. this is nothing, and lowing, the mots important thing si that they ALSO follow the laws of Great britain. therefore, they don't matter. I'm not worried about these courts, and neither should anyone else.
2008-02-10 04:58:28
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6850|SE London

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

sorry, the rules to follow are already decided, it is the laws of GB. Re-read the article this involves more than civil cases anyway.
Yes, they are. This does not conflict with that in any way. If some people are stupid enough to follow the ruling of these courts then let them. If they don't like the outcome they can always go to a real court that would give a legally binding verdict.

They are not courts because they have no power.
They are apparently binding in the minds of those that use this system outside the legitimate courts.........Which of course brings it full circle to the problem at hand.......the slow creeping and eventual foothold Islam is gaining in Europe. This is just another dismissed example of that fact.
In the minds of those who use them? So what?

You clearly know nothing at all about the situation in the UK (which is no slur against you, just something that comes across from your posts). If you had heard the backlash surrounding the whole Rowan Williams debacle you'd have some sort of idea, but as it is, you just pick up on a few negative sounding articles with no real idea of their social context. I doubt you'll find anyone from the UK posting in this thread being concerned about these Sharia courts, because we all know the reality of the situation. They have no power, nor will they ever get any.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-02-10 04:59:27)

2008-02-10 05:02:34
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6920|USA

samfink wrote:

erm, lowing, there IS a difference. the sharia courts that do operate are fro CIVIL issues, and ARE NOT legally binding. for a start, if one side doesn't want it judged in the sharia courts, it won't go to the sharia courts. also, what are arbitratiors, if not people not in the court system handing down judgements. if 2 muslims want something settled in sharia courts, I say fine. the courts that are there are the equivalent to non-binding arbitrators. anyway, if a victim doesn't want charge4s pressed, they won't be pressed. this is nothing, and lowing, the mots important thing si that they ALSO follow the laws of Great britain. therefore, they don't matter. I'm not worried about these courts, and neither should anyone else.
Hmmm, why would you need your own court system if one is already established in the country you are living in?? There is only one reason for this and that is because these people do not feel that they are subject to the laws of the land OVER that of sharia law. You are nuts if you do not think this will lead to bigger and bigger implementations of this in the future.

Yeah arbitration is an option, it is used for business transaction disputes and shit, divorces do not go to arbitration, they need to be finalized in court from my understanding.
2008-02-10 05:07:06
DeathBecomesYu
Member
+171|6448

samfink wrote:

erm, lowing, there IS a difference. the sharia courts that do operate are fro CIVIL issues, and ARE NOT legally binding. for a start, if one side doesn't want it judged in the sharia courts, it won't go to the sharia courts. also, what are arbitratiors, if not people not in the court system handing down judgements. if 2 muslims want something settled in sharia courts, I say fine. the courts that are there are the equivalent to non-binding arbitrators. anyway, if a victim doesn't want charge4s pressed, they won't be pressed. this is nothing, and lowing, the mots important thing si that they ALSO follow the laws of Great britain. therefore, they don't matter. I'm not worried about these courts, and neither should anyone else.
How does anyone really know how far these courts are reaching and to what extent judgments are being laid you. I dont think anyone here or anyone you know has experience inside one of these courts and if it is going beyond civil cases. Who really knows for sure and part of the problem is that some Sharia courts are more radical than others. Some Sharia courts are probably decent and trying to solve issues, but no one can guarantee that and honestly who should be making sure, who oversees these courts to make sure human rights are or aren't being violated. It really is a slippery slope.
2008-02-10 05:07:31
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6920|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


Yes, they are. This does not conflict with that in any way. If some people are stupid enough to follow the ruling of these courts then let them. If they don't like the outcome they can always go to a real court that would give a legally binding verdict.

They are not courts because they have no power.
They are apparently binding in the minds of those that use this system outside the legitimate courts.........Which of course brings it full circle to the problem at hand.......the slow creeping and eventual foothold Islam is gaining in Europe. This is just another dismissed example of that fact.
In the minds of those who use them? So what?

You clearly know nothing at all about the situation in the UK (which is no slur against you, just something that comes across from your posts). If you had heard the backlash surrounding the whole Rowan Williams debacle you'd have some sort of idea, but as it is, you just pick up on a few negative sounding articles with no real idea of their social context. I doubt you'll find anyone from the UK posting in this thread being concerned about these Sharia courts, because we all know the reality of the situation. They have no power, nor will they ever get any.
I know enough apparently, that makes me wonder why this guy would feel the need to make such observations in the first place........
2008-02-10 05:08:43
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6850|SE London

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:


They are apparently binding in the minds of those that use this system outside the legitimate courts.........Which of course brings it full circle to the problem at hand.......the slow creeping and eventual foothold Islam is gaining in Europe. This is just another dismissed example of that fact.
In the minds of those who use them? So what?

You clearly know nothing at all about the situation in the UK (which is no slur against you, just something that comes across from your posts). If you had heard the backlash surrounding the whole Rowan Williams debacle you'd have some sort of idea, but as it is, you just pick up on a few negative sounding articles with no real idea of their social context. I doubt you'll find anyone from the UK posting in this thread being concerned about these Sharia courts, because we all know the reality of the situation. They have no power, nor will they ever get any.
I know enough apparently, that makes me wonder why this guy would feel the need to make such observations in the first place........
Which guy? The head of the Anglican church?
2008-02-10 05:09:37
JahManRed
wank
+646|6897|IRELAND

I expect to wake up any morning soon and turn on the TV to see a Muslim man in a huge beard tell me that the Hordes of Muslims have secretly over thrown the UK government and legal system over night and if I disagree, to report to one of the many 'processing' points to have my hands removed.

I think its a good thing they settle their disputes in house. Their are already Jewish courts the UK who are doing nothing different. The culture in the UK and more over the USA is to take people to court for looking at you funny. If people are deeply religious and their religious morals can sort out problems before the are dragged through the legal system, at the cost of the tax payer, it can only be a good thing.
2008-02-10 05:13:00
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6920|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


In the minds of those who use them? So what?

You clearly know nothing at all about the situation in the UK (which is no slur against you, just something that comes across from your posts). If you had heard the backlash surrounding the whole Rowan Williams debacle you'd have some sort of idea, but as it is, you just pick up on a few negative sounding articles with no real idea of their social context. I doubt you'll find anyone from the UK posting in this thread being concerned about these Sharia courts, because we all know the reality of the situation. They have no power, nor will they ever get any.
I know enough apparently, that makes me wonder why this guy would feel the need to make such observations in the first place........
Which guy? The head of the Anglican church?
Your Rowan Williams
2008-02-10 05:16:09
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6850|SE London

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

I know enough apparently, that makes me wonder why this guy would feel the need to make such observations in the first place........
Which guy? The head of the Anglican church?
Your Rowan Williams
Who is the head of the Anglican Church (Archbishop of Canterbury).

You know absolutely nothing about the situation in the UK, that much is crystal clear.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-02-10 05:16:27)

2008-02-10 05:19:40
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6920|USA

JahManRed wrote:

I expect to wake up any morning soon and turn on the TV to see a Muslim man in a huge beard tell me that the Hordes of Muslims have secretly over thrown the UK government and legal system over night and if I disagree, to report to one of the many 'processing' points to have my hands removed.

I think its a good thing they settle their disputes in house. Their are already Jewish courts the UK who are doing nothing different. The culture in the UK and more over the USA is to take people to court for looking at you funny. If people are deeply religious and their religious morals can sort out problems before the are dragged through the legal system, at the cost of the tax payer, it can only be a good thing.
yeah, who will draw the line? and where will it be drawn? and what will you do when that line is crossed? Then what will you do about the inevitable outcry when you take action against these courts?  Again if you do not think this will get bigger you are naive.
2008-02-10 05:20:50
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6920|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


Which guy? The head of the Anglican church?
Your Rowan Williams
Who is the head of the Anglican Church (Archbishop of Canterbury).

You know absolutely nothing about the situation in the UK, that much is crystal clear.
Like I said, I seem to know enough to ask why Rowan Williams would feel the need to make such observations in the first place.
2008-02-10 05:21:40
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6850|SE London

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:


Your Rowan Williams
Who is the head of the Anglican Church (Archbishop of Canterbury).

You know absolutely nothing about the situation in the UK, that much is crystal clear.
Like I said, I seem to know enough to ask why Rowan Williams would feel the need to make such observations in the first place.
Do you know what those observations were?
2008-02-10 05:24:13
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6920|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


Who is the head of the Anglican Church (Archbishop of Canterbury).

You know absolutely nothing about the situation in the UK, that much is crystal clear.
Like I said, I seem to know enough to ask why Rowan Williams would feel the need to make such observations in the first place.
Do you know what those observations were?
"There have been calls for his resignation over comments he made February 7, 2008 in which he suggested that it seemed unavoidable that some aspects of sharia would have to be incorporated into English law, with British prime minister Gordon Brown ruling out the idea."
2008-02-10 05:25:17
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6850|SE London

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Like I said, I seem to know enough to ask why Rowan Williams would feel the need to make such observations in the first place.
Do you know what those observations were?
"There have been calls for his resignation over comments he made February 7, 2008 in which he suggested that it seemed unavoidable that some aspects of sharia would have to be incorporated into English law, with British prime minister Gordon Brown ruling out the idea."
So that's a no then?

This sums it up fairly well:

The archbishop delivered a long lecture in nuanced and often opaque language that defies easy synopsis. It lends itself to both a pragmatic and an ideological interpretation.

The pragmatic one is as follows: Britain is home to at least 1.6m Muslims. Many of them choose to run their lives, like followers of other faiths, in accordance with religious law. They want to marry, divorce, lend, borrow and generally conduct their affairs in accordance with sharia. But there is no mechanism in British society for recognising in public law the decisions they have made in private. Such mechanisms do exist for other religions. So fairness dictates that it should be technically easier for Muslims to get state recognition for their faith-based judicial rulings, as long as the choices sanctioned by sharia do not contravene the law of the land.

The ideological interpretation of Dr Williams's ideas goes thus: it is an article of faith for Muslims to submit themselves first and foremost to sharia law, which derives its authority from God. Christians, who share the same God, should be able to recognise in that something admirable. If a community wants to govern itself in peaceful piety according to its scriptures, the law should make every possible accommodation for them. Muslims should not be forced to choose between loyalty to God and loyalty to the state.
I don't want to quote his bloody sermon. He has been pretty much universally slated for his stupid and naive comments.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-02-10 05:28:22)

2008-02-10 05:27:40
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6920|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


Do you know what those observations were?
"There have been calls for his resignation over comments he made February 7, 2008 in which he suggested that it seemed unavoidable that some aspects of sharia would have to be incorporated into English law, with British prime minister Gordon Brown ruling out the idea."
So that's a no then?
Well, that is what I was referring to, if you wanna enlighten me, by all means, I am reading
2008-02-10 05:28:55
CC-Marley
Member
+407|7098
Stabbing=attempted murder. Settled out of court?
2008-02-10 05:31:28
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6850|SE London

CC-Marley wrote:

Stabbing=attempted murder. Settled out of court?
As can be done if the victim wants to. Of course the police could still arrest the attacker for possession of a knife, which the victim would have no say about.
2008-02-10 05:32:08
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6920|USA

CC-Marley wrote:

Stabbing=attempted murder. Settled out of court?
It is ok!!!!! It is an isolated incident..
2008-02-10 05:38:29
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6920|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


Do you know what those observations were?
"There have been calls for his resignation over comments he made February 7, 2008 in which he suggested that it seemed unavoidable that some aspects of sharia would have to be incorporated into English law, with British prime minister Gordon Brown ruling out the idea."
So that's a no then?

This sums it up fairly well:

The archbishop delivered a long lecture in nuanced and often opaque language that defies easy synopsis. It lends itself to both a pragmatic and an ideological interpretation.

The pragmatic one is as follows: Britain is home to at least 1.6m Muslims. Many of them choose to run their lives, like followers of other faiths, in accordance with religious law. They want to marry, divorce, lend, borrow and generally conduct their affairs in accordance with sharia. But there is no mechanism in British society for recognising in public law the decisions they have made in private. Such mechanisms do exist for other religions. So fairness dictates that it should be technically easier for Muslims to get state recognition for their faith-based judicial rulings, as long as the choices sanctioned by sharia do not contravene the law of the land.

The ideological interpretation of Dr Williams's ideas goes thus: it is an article of faith for Muslims to submit themselves first and foremost to sharia law, which derives its authority from God. Christians, who share the same God, should be able to recognise in that something admirable. If a community wants to govern itself in peaceful piety according to its scriptures, the law should make every possible accommodation for them. Muslims should not be forced to choose between loyalty to God and loyalty to the state.
I don't want to quote his bloody sermon. He has been pretty much universally slated for his stupid and naive comments.
ok, and??...........not sure how this proves that I "do not know what I am talking about" or how my concerns are not rational or legitimate regarding Islam in western society.
2008-02-10 06:34:26
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6824

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330193,00.html 

nothing to worry about...
lol ridiculous. Their decisions do not and cannot have any legal meaning. Or didn't you realise that? If anyone 'remarried' they could be tried for polygamy and they would not reap the tax benefits of any so-called 'marriage' they might be in. Meaningless.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-02-10 06:36:42)

2008-02-10 07:17:59
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6920|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330193,00.html 

nothing to worry about...
lol ridiculous. Their decisions do not and cannot have any legal meaning. Or didn't you realise that? If anyone 'remarried' they could be tried for polygamy and they would not reap the tax benefits of any so-called 'marriage' they might be in. Meaningless.
lol
2008-02-10 07:22:51
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6824

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330193,00.html 

nothing to worry about...
lol ridiculous. Their decisions do not and cannot have any legal meaning. Or didn't you realise that? If anyone 'remarried' they could be tried for polygamy and they would not reap the tax benefits of any so-called 'marriage' they might be in. Meaningless.
lol
Try and deny it.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 … 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard