Quake3World

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".

Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... html?r=RSS

i knew the guy was a card-carrying post-modernist tree-hugger and liberal caricature, but this is retarded on so many levels it's unreal. he actually thinks a form of segregation will enhance social cohesion, and that sharia law will end forced marriages (on account of them being against sharia law), forgetting that english law already does that

what a tool

Heard this on the news. What a cunt.

Tories actually said "UK citizens live by UK laws"

First thing they have said that I have agreed with for quite some time...

You've heard me say this before, but as a matter of law and political practice the UK government is far too interventionist in the lives and commerce of it's citizens.

When one form of intervention seems problematic, they offer another instead of none in it's place. Muslims immigrants and their tots grow up in an environment that encourages entitlement and legislation seeking from the government. This goes without mentioning the restrictions placed on the labour force, and issues of upward mobility for various minorities.

lol religion...

Massive Quasars wrote:You've heard me say this before, but as a matter of law and political practice the UK government is far too interventionist in the lives and commerce of it's citizens.

you're not wrong there. they've bought into the idea of activist government hook, line and sinker. people used to say blair was too much of a control freak but he was always a product of the environment rather than the maker of it (which is why i doubt he'll ever be considered to have the same stature as thatcher)

lol, i was listening to this pile on five live. He best fuck off before someone shoots him.

One world religion...

He should get on with surrendering to Rome. Religions of the book can all fuck off.

Sounds like a great idea to me:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 321637.ece

We all need us some of that.

lol, saudi arabia. we should have bombed them instead

Doombrain wrote:He best fuck off before someone shoots him.

There are no guns over there.

creep wrote:

Doombrain wrote:He best fuck off before someone shoots him.

There are no guns over there.

a crossbow would do the trick

seremtan wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm

did anyone actually read his comments carefully? He actually makes some sense - he's not saying that sharia law should be adopted in full - just that certain elements of it which aren't necessarily harmful should be integrated in order that muslims can get the best of both worlds legally and culturally.

He also cites other examples where this has been done in jewish law, for example.

Fuck that.

You are in the UK. Live by UK laws or fuck off.

way to mindlessly regurgitate an emotional talking point. ffs did u actually read the bbc piece in detail?

Yes i read it and i do not see why the UK law should change because you're religion is different. It is that simple. If you are in the UK you will be governed by UK law. You will have the same rights as everyone else and you will have the same restraints as everyone else.

All this will do is breed further segregation within communities.

Why should the UK be forced to make changes to their fundamental laws just to apease immigrants? I've no problem with a multi-cultural society, but we've all seen how muslim's react when the west does something which goes against their laws/beliefs in their home territories. Some give and take would be nice.

w3rd

For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

what happens when one party in a matter does not choose sharia court? or how can we be sure no intimidation has occurred?

taking religion out of justice is the only way to ensure fair treatment for everyone. can you imagine the overhead and administration costs or the general clusterfuck if every religion was pandered too? western countries have advanced for this reason(subjective i know).

canada, uk and usa all have some sort of charter of rights. it applies to everyone(except canadian natives where the indian act can overide the charter. not good for natives and hopefully will be dealt with in the next few years).

brisk wrote:Why should the UK be forced to make changes to their fundamental laws just to apease immigrants? I've no problem with a multi-cultural society, but we've all seen how muslim's react when the west does something which goes against their laws/beliefs in their home territories. Some give and take would be nice.

way to lump all muslims in one category :/

[xeno]Julios wrote:

brisk wrote:Why should the UK be forced to make changes to their fundamental laws just to apease immigrants? I've no problem with a multi-cultural society, but we've all seen how muslim's react when the west does something which goes against their laws/beliefs in their home territories. Some give and take would be nice.

way to lump all muslims in one category :/

not all muslims are immigrants as well. however keeping religion out of justice is, imo, the FAIREST to everyone.

shadd_ wrote:
what happens when one party in a matter does not choose sharia court? or how can we be sure no intimidation has occurred?

that's an interesting point. Hadn't thought of that - might be a problem in some families.

shadd_ wrote: taking religion out of justice is the only way to ensure fair treatment for everyone. can you imagine the overhead and administration costs or the general clusterfuck if every religion was pandered too? western countries have advanced for this reason(subjective i know).

again, the article gives examples of where this has been done for judaism (and i think catholicsm but coudln't understand that bit). But this isn't so much religious law as it they are cultural. And I think the argument is being made that british law itself is derived from its own traditions and religious influences.

The point he's making is a good one - the reality is that there is a large segment of british society which is experiencing a conflict between assimilation and their own roots.

And keep in mind we're not talking about allowing four wives per man, or legal proceedings which discriminate against a particular sex.

Assuming these elements of sharia are not harmful, and have no actual moral bearing one way or the other, I don't see the problem with allowing it, so long as they are fair and just, and are accountable to the british government.

all i'm saying is last i heard, britain was a secular society. if a country which was founded on christian law/belief has no influence on current laws, then why should a foreign religious law apply?

and sorry, a little late with that reply as i went to get some food before i submitted. but yes, the point is: keep religion out of justice. in fact, keep religion out of everything.

Dr Williams noted that Orthodox Jewish courts already operated, and that the law accommodated the anti-abortion views of some Christians.

"The whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways the law of the land pays respect to custom and community, that's already there," he said.

People may legally devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.

Muslim Sharia courts and the Jewish Beth Din which already exist in the UK come into this category.

I see not too much wrong with this, and I am sympathetic with the subtext of Williams' arguments, which is that he feels unease with the hegemony of nation states.

In fact, one could make the argument that allowing for (fair and just) sharia courts is an exemplar of democracy in the true sense (rather than tyranny of the majority).