Tuesday, September 27, 2016 • Afternoon Edition • "At least we're not CBR!"

The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

Comics news, comic book reviews, feature articles about comics, interviews with comic creators, plus the greatest comic book and pop culture discussion in the Outhouse forums!

Advertisement

Sharron Angle: Muslim law taking hold in parts of US

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Well, they're not accepting new members, but we'll take anyone here, so why not sign up for a free acount? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

User avatar

Frag

REAL OFFICIAL President of the Outhouse

Postby Frag » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:15 am

MoneyMelon wrote:
Moron judges terrify me.

I mean, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people, when it comes to campaign contributions.

I don't have much confidence in them.


They terrify me too, but not as such low levels.

When you get to the high levels and the SC, then it's scarier.
User avatar

S.F. Jude Terror

OMCTO

Postby S.F. Jude Terror » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:16 am

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.”

The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future “seems unavoidable” in Britain.

In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.

In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.

It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.

Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. “All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,” said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.

Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.

Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a “parallel legal system” based on sharia for some British Muslims.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.”

Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “I think it’s appalling. I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.”

There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.

Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.

Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 749183.ece


If you think that shit isn't where we're headed in some of these communities, you're fooling yourself.
User avatar

Regulator

Motherfucker from Hell

Postby Regulator » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:19 am

MoneyMelon wrote:Religious beliefs should be irrelevant to the ruling as the appellate court stated



You could come to the same conclusion without using that path though. I'm not defending the decision, I'm explaining why it was made. The same result could come from asking the lady if the man had raped her or tried to rape her after the divorce and she says no. This judge felt there was no threat to her because of post-divorce behavior, whether explicitly stated or in conjunction with the man's admission of his beliefs about the conduct of married people. Once they're not married, he doesn't get to fuck her.

He's not saying it was ok to rape her because they were married, he's saying she's no longer under a threat because they're not married. Those are two very different statements.

Alchemic_Spider

Postby Alchemic_Spider » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:20 am

Jude Terror wrote:

If you think that shit isn't where we're headed in some of these communities, you're fooling yourself.


I'm not so familiar with sharia law but I feel comfortable with saying that laws that say it's okay to beat your wife will never be accepted here. No matter how much the bitch was asking for it.
User avatar

Thunderstorm

Not a Kardashian

Postby Thunderstorm » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:20 am

Jude Terror wrote:Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.


:lol:

Liberalism. Getting the wrong results 100% of the time. :D
User avatar

MoneyMelon

Chief Yankee Wanker

Postby MoneyMelon » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:20 am

Regulator wrote:
You could come to the same conclusion without using that path though. I'm not defending the decision, I'm explaining why it was made. The same result could come from asking the lady if the man had raped her or tried to rape her after the divorce and she says no. This judge felt there was no threat to her because of post-divorce behavior, whether explicitly stated or in conjunction with the man's admission of his beliefs about the conduct of married people. Once they're not married, he doesn't get to fuck her.

He's not saying it was ok to rape her because they were married, he's saying she's no longer under a threat because they're not married. Those are two very different statements. I don't know how to put it any simpler.

I think the path the judge uses to reach his conclusion is very important, personally.
User avatar

S.F. Jude Terror

OMCTO

Postby S.F. Jude Terror » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:21 am

Alchemic_Spider wrote:
I'm not so familiar with sharia law but I feel comfortable with saying that laws that say it's okay to beat your wife will never be accepted here. No matter how much the bitch was asking for it.


They shouldn't be, but when pee-pants liberals are afraid to even consider the possibility for fear of having said something not nice about non-white people, it becomes a danger.
User avatar

Eli Katz

OMCTO

Postby Eli Katz » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:22 am

If Republicans were more concerned about the use and misuse of all religious law in the United States, I would take their concerns over Shariah more seriously. But they never discuss misogynistic rulings against women that have occurred in Jewish courts (Beis Din) in New York. There were a few outrageous cases that made headlines and one case in particular that inspired a Law and Order episode.

I'm not a supporter of religious courts for any matter, whether it is for business arbitration or family law cases. I just wish the issue wouldn't be framed as a solely Muslim problem. In constitutional democracies, everyone should live by and under the same set of laws. Period.
User avatar

Thunderstorm

Not a Kardashian

Postby Thunderstorm » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:23 am

As a gay person, I'd rather not take the chance on some barbaric law being passed that will result in everyone I know being murdered in the name of Allah.

Alchemic_Spider

Postby Alchemic_Spider » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:24 am

Thunderstorm wrote:As a gay person, I'd rather not take the chance on some barbaric law being passed that will result in everyone I know being murdered in the name of Allah.



I would like to think you know at least one straight person.. :P
User avatar

S.F. Jude Terror

OMCTO

Postby S.F. Jude Terror » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:25 am

Eli Katz wrote:If Republicans were more concerned about the use and misuse of all religious law in the United States, I would take their concerns over Shariah more seriously. But they never discuss misogynistic rulings against women that have occurred in Jewish courts (Beis Din) in New York. There were a few outrageous cases that made headlines and one case in particular that inspired a Law and Order episode.

I'm not a supporter of religious courts for any matter, whether it is for business arbitration or family law cases. I just wish the issue wouldn't be framed as a solely Muslim problem. In constitutional democracies, everyone should live by and under the same set of laws. Period.


I agree with that. I'm not laughing off Jewish courts as a ridiculous non-threat though.
User avatar

Thunderstorm

Not a Kardashian

Postby Thunderstorm » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:26 am

Alchemic_Spider wrote:

I would like to think you know at least one straight person.. :P


Every gay person I know...
User avatar

MoneyMelon

Chief Yankee Wanker

Postby MoneyMelon » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:27 am

Eli Katz wrote:If Republicans were more concerned about the use and misuse of all religious law in the United States, I would take their concerns over Shariah more seriously. But they never discuss misogynistic rulings against women that have occurred in Jewish courts (Beis Din) in New York. There were a few outrageous cases that made headlines and one case in particular that inspired a Law and Order episode.

I'm not a supporter of religious courts for any matter, whether it is for business arbitration or family law cases. I just wish the issue wouldn't be framed as a solely Muslim problem. In constitutional democracies, everyone should live by and under the same set of laws. Period.

I thoroughly agree
User avatar

Frag

REAL OFFICIAL President of the Outhouse

Postby Frag » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:27 am

Well ok then it's settled. England has Sharia arbitration courts because of some clause or something so that means America has been taken over by Muslim law.

Not that that's settled... :roll: :lol:
User avatar

Regulator

Motherfucker from Hell

Postby Regulator » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:28 am

MoneyMelon wrote:I think the path the judge uses to reach his conclusion is very important, personally.


There's something that's still not connecting and you're still kind of ignoring the last statement. Here is the timeline:

- they get married
- man rapes wife
- they divorce
- no more sex/rape
- lady files restraining order

The man said he felt he could have sex with his wife whenever he wanted because that's his religious belief. They get divorced. That means they're no longer married. That means he doesn't get to have sex with this lady any more. The man didn't go around saying he gets to fuck whoever he wants, he said he gets to fuck his wife. Personally, I think it's a legitimate ruling for a restraining order because motivations behind the potential assailant should play into it. If he's in court saying that he can't submit this lady to his will now that they're not married, it severely mitigates the threat which reduces the need for a restraining order. But we don't know the entire story behind that because we're only getting a paragraph summation in a Fox News story.

Again, this ruling is not a statement on whether or not it is acceptable to rape your wife.

leave a comment with facebook


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexa [Bot], BarrySagittarius, Grayson, Johnnie Torch, MSNbot Media, The Generic Man and 43 guests