March 29, 2024, 06:45:26 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: My British Brethren who allowed sharia law during their madcow disease  (Read 2141 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Tylergal
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9535



« on: September 28, 2008, 04:58:56 PM »

Conservatives would ban sharia courts, says shadow minister
A Conservative government would ban sharia courts and impose a tough crackdown on Islamic extremism, the shadow security minister has said.

By Jon Swaine
Last Updated: 3:39PM BST 28 Sep 2008

The Conservatives are on their way back to power, but they still have a long way to go - according to Tory party chairman Caroline Spelman, who opened their conference in Birmingham today. ; http
Pauline Neville-Jones, a former head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, said: "We are not going to have any status for sharia courts. Absolutely not."

Earlier this month it emerged that the Government had quietly allowed rulings of five sharia courts across Britain to be enforceable through the county courts or High Court.

Lady Neville-Jones said that while minor disputes could be settled by "customary mediation" - including through sharia and the Jewish Beth Din system - there could be no formal legal recognition.

"We are not going to have any legal recognition of sharia judgments that would withstand appeal to a secular court," she said before the Tory conference in Birmingham, .

Speaking the day after Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said Britain had "done something terrible to ourselves" by encouraging multiculturalism, Lady Neville-Jones said that the Conservatives would make the case for more "integration" among all British people, whatever their backgrounds.

She said: "We want unity and opportunity, despite difference, through integration."

She accused the Government of leading the country down the "blind alley of multiculturalism, which has deliberately gone down the road of separation for its own sake."

Lady Neville-Jones said there was also a clear divide between the Tories and Labour on the question of how to deal with the spread of extremism among some young Muslims.

"We will be tough. We will be really tough on the men of violence and those who lead them to violence," she told the Sunday Express. "That's the real gap between us and the Government at the moment."

She explained that a Conservative Government would move to extend the list of banned extremist groups - potentially including Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is regularly accused of anti-Semitism, and Tablighi Jamaat, which is behind plans to build a "mega mosque" near the site of the London Olympics complex in East London.

She also said the Tories would seek to reform the European Convention on Human Rights in order to allow the deportation of preachers who incite violence against Britain.

Speaking in response to Lady Neville-Jones's comments, Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "Sharia courts operate with the blessing of UK law."

He added: "As for banning organisations, we believe in a democracy it is far better to allow all organisations to operate freely, and if individuals happen to break the law then they ought to be prosecuted."
Logged

There is always one more imbecile than you counted on
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2008, 06:02:19 PM »

Quote
Lady Neville-Jones said that while minor disputes could be settled by "customary mediation" - including through sharia and the Jewish Beth Din system - there could be no formal legal recognition.

Bet Din ~

The U.S. had a "Jewish People's Court" program - it was once a TV program on public television, I haven't seen or watched it in a long time. 

Quote
The Hebrew term applied to a Jewish religious or civil court of law. The bet din, literally translated as "house of judgement," originated during the period of the Second Temple, and was known as the Sanhedrin. This establishment of courts, however, has biblical origin, and is recorded in Exodus. The text says that Moses sat as a magistrate among the people (Exodus 18:13), and he later delegated his judicial powers to appointed "chiefs of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens" (Ex. 18:21; Deuteronomy 1:15), reserving himself for jurisdiction in only the most difficult, major disputes (Ex. 18:22 and 26; Deut. 1:17). Judges were to be "able men, such as [those who] fear God, men of truth, hating unjust gain" (Ex. 18:21) and "wise men, understanding and full of knowledge" (Deut. 1:13). They were charged to "hear the causes between your brethren and judge righteously between a man and his brother and the stranger," not be "partial in judgment," but to "hear the small and the great alike; fear no man, for judgment is God's" (Deut. 1:16–17).

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/BetDin.html

http://jlaw.com/

The TV show was quite interesting and different.  I couldn't find a link, so I'm not sure if it's still on.  People of faith chose this court over the US civil courts.

IIRC, Judge Wapner (sp?) once had a case that started in the Bet Din and one party went to the TV court next.  Not sure why they didn't pursue the civil case first.
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
Tylergal
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9535



« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2008, 06:13:17 PM »

What has made America great in the past is the integration of different cultures into one, ours, the American experience.  When you start dinking around the edges and everyone wants the modifications to suit their specific religion, race, color or creed, then you have lost the pillars of the republic of which our forefathers so wisely laid the groundwork.
Logged

There is always one more imbecile than you counted on
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2008, 06:48:28 PM »

I read long ago that the smallest religious/political unit was the individual and family.  People have lots of flexibility.

On a larger scale, we all need to get along and I do believe the founding members of the US put a lot of thought into crafting the base of this great nation.  A few modifications along the way made it better.

I'm not sure what happened since then, but financial security/responsibility on an individual and corporate level is part of the foundation.  'Responsibility' seems to have fallen by the wayside.

In the olden days, IIRC, after public school, many went to Greek school, CCD, Chinese school, and other programs to promote specific cultures and religions.  One culture with many flavors and a diverse history.

I've known a lot of immigrant children (grew up with them) that raised families intending to go back home some day...however their children were raised American, there grandchildren are American, and they eventually choose to stay.

One family took their youngest with them (a bonus baby) and returned within a year.  Over the span of about thirty years, they had become to Americanized to live and 'adapt' to the country of their birth.
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
MuffyBee
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44737



« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2008, 07:59:13 PM »

What has made America great in the past is the integration of different cultures into one, ours, the American experience.  When you start dinking around the edges and everyone wants the modifications to suit their specific religion, race, color or creed, then you have lost the pillars of the republic of which our forefathers so wisely laid the groundwork.

 thumleft
Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 7.495 seconds with 19 queries.