Sharia Law In England!!!

Fine! Domestically at least...apart from the law that authorises muslim men to beat-up their wives if they mis-behave. They can eat what they want, wear what they want, fast when they want, go to mecca - whatever. It's all decent enough when conisdering that a growing percentage of the population follow the perverted ideals of Gardner and 15% of the total population have no religion atall (that figure includes the jedi religion). We're all entitled to follow our calendars, rituals, etc. As far as the muslim situation is concerned, you have to remember that you're referring to aprox 2.7% of the population of GB. (most of whom would oppose sharia law anyhow). No great deal. As far as sharia is concerned (domestically), as long as it doesn't conflict with British Law then I don't see any problem.

I see introducing Sharia Law on a local level as being fine. I for one would like to see Essex and parts of Kent under Sharia Law

I think certain parts of North London should be made to live under patmac law. In patmac law I get my shopping free from Tescos. I get free parking in city centres at busy times. I don't have to pay the congestion charge, or queue for entry into the cinema to see popular films. (And I get free popcorn brought up to my seat during the screening.)

We have a similar concept here...for the American Indians...they live on reservations and have their own governments. Mostly they are poverty stricken zones in remote areas with gambling casinos as the main source of income for the community. Be careful what you wish for, you just may get it. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

I understand the differences George, but the concept is the same regardless. A nation within a nation. How one derives it is of little importance, once it forms it takes on a life of its own and ends up being nothing as envisioned. American Indians living on reservations have their own Tribal justice system and for the most part the federal authorities stay out of it. You are talking about Moslems having a tribal authority within your borders. All they are asking for I fear is poverty and isolation...it's a knee jerk reaction and a bad idea. They should either integrate into the existing society and change it politically by being an active component or go migrate somewhere else. The alternative is they end up being perceived as a bigger threat to the community. As an afterthought...I see a striking resemblence here as a matter of fact, on a lager scale. Eurpoeans more or less over-ran the Americas, the native populations could not stop it. The Arabs have the same basic problem. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

Missi, Shockingly I agree with you 100%. With Sharia law, being that it is anathema to everything our 'Western' society supports, I'd rather that they all move to an Islamic country if they want that. To demand Sharia and yet live amongst the wonderful 'liberalities' of Western society is hypocritical, IMO. I don't want anything to do with it, nor does the other 98% of the population involved, I'm sure. RD, I know exactly what you mean; having spent four years surrounded by 'The Rez' (the Navajo Nation), trying to create a sovereign nation within a nation is an object lesson in futility and actually creates a terrible schism: education, for example, on the Rez is appallingly bad. We had university students coming from the Rez who could barely spell or write; they were allowed into university under a blinding double standard, with one level for Native Americans and another for the rest of us. It did the Native Americans a huge disservice, as they were being passed through uni with very substandard expectations and being allowed to graduate, to pass on their lack of reading/writing/spelling to the next generation on the reservations. Didn't I read something in the news recently where the British Government was thinking about no longer calling the UK a 'Christian' nation, as it was deemed politically incorrect and an insult to the religious minorities? As camus likes to say: FFS.

oi...don't be stealing my FFS'S!

Sorry! They're very effective! :-)

Ok, I'll let you off this time.

Yeah, but think of the great music you'll benefit from as a result George. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

Just be careful what you put in your mouth. Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

Despite my deserved or undeserved reputation as an opinionated and self-regarding arsehole, I'm actually a very nice person 'in person', too, Missi, much like yourself! I'm not so sure about the bodily fluids thing, tho': according to you and Darwin, our DNA wouldn't be compatible...

She's a mermaid? Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

Muslim leaders don't necessarily represent this country's Muslims. At least, not very effectively. They're 'leaders' because they're powerful people with a hard line on things. I mean, how would we feel if all the demands Blair (or even Nick Griffin) made were construed as being what the English wanted? ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Amazingly I think we're all more or less agreed so far - the implications of allowing a sub-group in society to live under a different legal system is horrendous. Whilst I've got plenty of Muslim friends who are sensible and moderate as well as living personally by the code of their faith, a form of "Sharia law" would mean allowing Muslim women to be raped by family, forced into marriage, beaten, denied contraception, having their testimony invalidated and all the horrors you can find from West Africa through to Indonesia; all these things would come here and be unable to be repudiated (of course most Muslim men would continue to live like decadent Westerers or worse!) If we could just obliterate the racist shit who prey on minorities, I think most Muslims would admit they're well off in our liberal society.

Wow, I thought I was fairly liberal and left-wing! Question is, how liberal should you be towards people who are very illiberal themselves? For example, many Asians and Afro-Caribbeans are especially vindictive towards homosexuals; if racial equality is demanded BY racial minorities (rightly so) then we should also make plain that gender and sexual orientation equality are demanded FROM them . I hope I thought that out for myself and didn't nick it from some forgotten Daily Mail editorial!

Agreed, Neil. It's a cake-and-eat-it situation. Racial equality should be accompanied by gender equality, sexual orientation equality, hair colour equality, class equality, etc, etc, etc... ~PEPS~ “There is no spoon.”

In the vast majority of moslem countries (malasia, indonesia, pakistan, eygypt) you will have no problem finding drinks and scantily clad ladies. I'm told that even in the nuttier parts of the ariabian peninsula these things are available for westerners (though it's often a case of the law looking the other way). As a general rule muslims do not try to enforce islamic law on non-muslims.

Missi, I *do* love it when you talk that way. I couldn't agree with you more.

I'm not trying to defend islamic law, it's hateful and barbaric, I find a lot of Christian doctorine distasteful as well. But this paranoia that the arabs want to force it on the rest of us is a load of crap. In Saudi and Iran, which are the only really nutty places of any note, the law still looks the other way (mostly) regarding westeners bringing in/brewing their own booze and wearing what they like. The basic deal is as long as your're not selling alcohol to locals, and as long as women aren't exposing too much flesh in public, you're okay. That seems very reasonable to me. The ONLY muslims who give a fig about the law in britain are the ones who live here, and then only a few hardliners suggested they might be allowed to live by Sharia law in their own affairs (i.e. NOT ANYONE ELSE'S) and they probably made that request in the full knowledge that it was utterly unnaceptable (I agree whole heartedly that it is unnaceptable) but it was a good place to start bargaining. I'm sure they'd love you to convert Missi, but only the most lunatic pyschopath fringe care how you live your own life.

I think perhaps the problem here is not so much some Muslims (however small a proportion of them) inflicting Sharia Law on non-Muslims, but rather in the infliction of the Law on other sections of the Muslim community… For example, what about non-Muslim women who don’t believe in the Law, but have it inflicted on them by the influential male Muslims who do? I don’t know the details of what they are proposing… would there be a vote? If so, would the Muslims who voted against the Law be “allowed” to live outside it? However small an effect this may have on the Muslim and non-Muslim community in the short term, I think perhaps it is a dangerous precedent. If this kind of thing goes ahead, who will be the next group who decides they want to be allowed to live outside national law? Satanists? The National Front? Anyone who decides to set up their own religion and declares any law except their own to be invalid? ~PEPS~ “There is no spoon.”

"So as Neil says, those that desire equality must be prepared to offer it." If you do a deal that way round, no one gets anywhere. The only way for the principle of equal opportunity to spread is for it to be offered. There's no doubt in my mind that liberal attitudes would spread far faster among Muslim communities if large portions of them didn't feel they were the victims of illiberal attitudes themselves. "I'm not aware of any fanatical christians in this country." You are joking, right? Go and spend some time on Peter Hitchens' blog. Meet the kind of people who renounced their conservative party membership because John Major wasn't a Christian, who think that this country is an abhorration, and will continue to be, until it is ruled firmly by a Christian autocracy. Spend some time with the kind of white, middle class working men and women who still believe that Aids is God's punishment on all of us for not condemning homosexuality, and that blues/rock n' roll is the devil's music, hand-in-hand with the moral rot that has spread throughout Britain since the fifties. Maybe even talk to Hitchens himself, a bestselling author of books like 'The Abolition of Britain', in which there is a chapter entitled 'The Pill That Cured Morality', and chat to him about his belief that 'homophobic' is a false word made up by a conspiracy of left-wingers to demonise righteous Christians. You can't ever get rid of these people. Your Islamists will always exist among Muslim communities. The best thing to do is not give moderate, or undecided people any reason to think that they might have a point. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

"What way round?" I meant if you say, 'We'll only offer you equality as a race if you start offering equality to your women', or any arrangement where you expect people to be moral themselves before you're prepared to treat them in a fair way. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe Just to avoid me (and

I get Jack’s general point… Equality should apply across the board, but we should lead by example, not by making demands of those we don’t approve of. Otherwise we’re playing a bit of a game of tit-for-tat. However, I think this whole Sharia Law issue is not about fanatical Muslims demanding equality, but rather demanding they be allowed to live by a particular set of laws – which is not the same thing. We should say to them, we will treat you all how we treat the rest of the population – we will respect your beliefs and your religion, but if you act in a way that is outside of the nation’s law you will also be treated the same as everyone else (obviously this is an idealised proposal, based on the assumption that we (Britain) do treat followers of all religions with equal respect). Conceding to the demands of a tiny minority in this way leads to segregation, which, by the examples of South Africa, certain southern states of America up until relatively recently, etc, most definitely does not equate with equality. ~PEPS~ “There is no spoon.”

Like who? ~PEPS~ “There is no spoon.”