Sharia in the UK
Legal pluralism is all the rage in Europe and among American legal academics. The concept is that different laws should apply to different groups within the same country. This is why Canada allows some religious courts legal authority. The same applies to Britain. No joke.The scary thing, is that it could happen here too. It's all the rage in law schools. And young lawyers today become tomorow's judges...... Dread Pundit Bluto has the details. But here's a teaser from The Telegraph:
Faizul Aqtab Siddiqi, a barrister and principal of Hijaz College Islamic University, near Nuneaton, Warwicks, said this type of court had advantages for Muslims. "It operates on a low budget, it operates on very small timescales and the process and the laws of evidence are far more lenient and it's less awesome an environment than the English courts," he said. Mr Siddiqi predicted that there would be a formal network of Muslim courts within a decade.Coming soon to the UK: rape victims being stoned to death, amputation for shoplifting, and the death sentence for blasphemers.
Sounds like a carefully worded description of a lynch-mob.
Posted by: forest at November 29, 2006 11:58 AM
The UK has no 'religious courts legal authority', nor will it ever have. Get your facts straight. As for Bluto's ridiculous assertion that what is effectively an out-of-court settlement poses a 'direct threat to [British] sovereignty' - get a grip. This is pure hyperbole.I'm not in any way speaking up in favour of what occurred. I certainly do not believe in this 'legal pluralism' nonsense - I've no time forminorities trying to create their own encampments within our borders. But this particular story is a non-event.
Posted by: Joe Public at November 29, 2006 02:56 PM
Sharia law could come to the U.S. Some form of it may already be here!
Parties, muslim or otherwise, could agree to submit to Sharia law in civil matters where state and federal law does not otherwise exempt such by statute or case law. They could mutually agree as to the Rules of Evidence to be used (or agree to none at all), who will arbitrate the case, and the degree of weight given to the testimony of a witness i.e. greater weight accorded to the testimony of witnesses who are Muslim with less weight given to women and/or infidels.
This is something the mutually agreed parties could legally do now in civil cases in accordance with Sharia law, subject to state and federal law and governed thereby.
It's called arbitration. Parties can mutually agree to enter into binding arbitration, mutually choose the arbitrator or tribunal to hear the case, and mutually agree on the particular body of law, i.e. statutes and case law, to be applied.
See also: [Link: www.mediate.com...]
As the BBC article stated: "This is because under English law people may devise their own way to settle a dispute before an agreed third party." Unless a statute states otherwise, we in America operate under English common law.
However, keep in mind that parties can NOT agree to arbitrate criminal cases. The article is correct when it stated: "What they mustn't do - and this must never happen - is to stray into the field of criminal matters. That simply would never be acceptable."
In a criminal cases, the victim is not a party that can agree to arbitration. The STATE or FEDS are the aggrieved party not the victim. And it goes without saying, that the accused does not have a right to arbitration in a criminal matter.
As to remedies in those cases eligible for arbitration, i.e., like contract disputes, Muslims need to realize that the prevailing party is not entitled to a severed head, limb, and/or beating for the losing partys failure to abide by a term in a contract like a default on payment. Such act and/or remedy would be deemed a crime.
Posted by: FLLaw33870 at November 29, 2006 02:57 PM
For those out of staters we will be offering a fly-in fly-out service at all 3 of the major metropolitan airports.
A bit of professional advertisement here.... STAY AWAY FROM THE CATHOLIC COURTS
Posted by: John Ryan at November 29, 2006 03:03 PM
The problem is that while we waste time on stupid non-issues like this, there is a very REAL and growing risk of hostile take-over and implementation of actual sick laws and punishments such as blasphemy law, stoning and amputation - these real threats are being ignored while we piss around with century-old arbitration crap and veil-banning.
Posted by: Johnny Nox at November 29, 2006 04:40 PM
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 29, 2006 06:13 PM
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 29, 2006 07:28 PM
Posted by: Joe Public at November 29, 2006 08:13 PM
Posted by: Joe Public at November 29, 2006 08:15 PM
Women have virtually no rights under sharia law, but no big deal says the Leftwing multi-cultist. Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 29, 2006 08:47 PM
Johnny Knox, if they (muslims, leftists, take it how you want) follow their normal pattern, once they get civil courts they'll start in on wanting their own criminal courts. You're already starting to see it in some parts of the states with language-specific courts, so why wouldn't they push for ethnic or religious specific courts as well?
Posted by: Ranba Ral at November 29, 2006 09:32 PM
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 29, 2006 09:54 PM
Its suppossed to be a Lebonese girl, and the guy who left it was saying 'this is what they want to kill'
Well, Sharia kills this ...
Sharia kills all that is good about that link.
Sharia is poison to the water of freedom.
Frankly, the adoption of any Sharia court in the USA must constitute a direct attack on American soil. Whatever soil such a court occupies, will be in enemy hands while that court remains. it should be the obvious duty of any citizen who loves his Constitution, and honors the founding fathers, to strike against such an abomination on US soil.
Is that 'felonious' enough for everyone?
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at November 30, 2006 04:17 PM
Posted by: Joe Public at November 30, 2006 07:14 PM
I think you have a lot of good points. I would only be concerned that Sharia is actually advancing itself in subtle ways. Some 'arbitration' has allowed women and children to be abused even in non-muslim families.
I have seen slippery slope legal precedents take hold in parts of Montana, where out of state enviromental groups negotiate with federal agancies, and the people of the state I live in get bypassed. Just as one example.
Sharia is way more dangerous, and I think it is correct of us to watch what legal decisions are reached based on faith courts.
I would rather see a provision for hardship ruling system dealing with religious belief, in a regular secular court. A secular court could provide a layer of protection to family members who do not want a Sharia style decision, but are pressured by family, and community. The court provides a scapegoat for the victim to shift blame to.
I don't know, its complicated, and I just want to see thright thing done.
Guard those flags and the pigs as well :)
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 03, 2006 12:57 AM
buy viagra online
order viagra online
Posted by: buy viagra at April 11, 2007 12:00 AM
replica designer handbags
designer replica handbags
replica coach handbags
wholesale replica handbags
replica louis vuitton handbags
coach replica handbags
replica chanel handbags
Posted by: replica handbags at April 11, 2007 02:30 PM
replica rolex watches
Posted by: Replica watches at April 11, 2007 05:59 PM
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0067 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0043 seconds, 26 records returned.
Page size 19 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.