Archbishop of Canterbury calls for some Sharia Law in UK

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by thingy, Feb 7, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Yes

  2. Maybe

    0 vote(s)
  3. No

    0 vote(s)
  4. Christians alone should be able to continue to enjoy special rights because they are the State relig

    0 vote(s)
  5. Other

    0 vote(s)
  1. You couldn't make it up!

    It is worth noting however that the Christian community already has opt outs from some legislation that many of its members disagree with, lobbied for by Williams himself as it happens, so a politicolegal precident has already been established.

    My own opinion is that there is a case for allowing the non-religious to opt out of the Christian laws underpinning this nation where it violates our strongly held opinions. However I believe that any opt outs or imposition of ideological values upon non-fellow travellers/believers has the effect of eroding the rule of law and ought therefore to be prohibited. I'm not sure my argument adds up however!
  2. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

  3. What do you expect from someone who dresses like Boy George?
    His job is defunct,what with women priests,gay rights etc the Anglican Church is split and dead in the water.
    He looks like a prat,acts like a prat and speaks like a prat.
    I speak as a long confirmed athiest and,when I look at this head of a church,I'm damned glad of it.
  4. Multiple wives could be an advantage coupled with the thrice repeated " I Divorce You" when past their sell by date.
  5. Keep the church separate from the state, yes many of the present day laws were based upon Christian beliefs, but hey back then, the only other game in town was anarchy, but a lot of these same laws were common law, i.e. common sense laws...

    A lot of the laws on the books are no longer relevant and should be brought into the 21st Century (Still illegal to leave your horse tied up in downtown Calgary for an example), but Sharia is counter productive, as one of the links in the BBC report showed "Ontario says no to Sharia law", and the reason was the overwhelming response from the Women's rights organisations, because the one thing about the Sharia laws is it keeps the women underfoot and susceptible to tyranny, and in the modern age, this has no place alongside the laws that were brought in to counter abuse against ethnic minorities and or women, goes against common sense.

    Just my 0.02 :hockey:
  6. wet_blobby

    wet_blobby War Hero Moderator

    Sharia law is bollocks, the arab states were world leaders in science, medicine, litrarature, astronomy etc until this raghead bloke married a 6 year old and cast them in to the eternal backwaters.

    This Govt has just said that a muslim with more than one wife can get multiple benifits...WTF.......not only is that contary to the whole family fabric of the UK its a bit of a kick in the teeth to every pensioner etc.

    Or is silly me forgetting most ragheads live in labour wards? Glad I'm doing the big bug out
  7. The sooner we get a complete separation between church and state the better.
    So much recent legislation has been heavily influenced by having to pass it through unelected clerics in the upper house.
  8. "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"

    Henry II when speaking of a previous Archbishop of Canterbury who said stupid things.
  9. This is just bloody stupid! This is the UK so therefore residents should follow UK law. I'm not against people coming from anywhere to live in this country providing they get a job and don't mooch of the state (OK I'm a student but I won't be forever) and they accept our laws and traditions. At the end of the day (without meaning to sound racist/intolerant) they can bugger off and live somewhere else if they don't!
  11. We already have Sharia law in this country, although it might better be described as Sharia arbitration. We also have Jewish law/arbitration - ever heard of the Beth Din?

    We also have secular arbitration in this country - leases for instance often have clauses about disputes on management or service charges being referred to the RCIS.

    All of this is outwith the statute and common law of this country.

    What we should be happy to have is arbitration which both parties agree to voluntarily and agree to abide by the results, but which does not mean that people give up the right to resort to the state courts should it become necessary.

    My only reservation is that sharia divorce arbitration appears on the face of it to be discriminatory to females. Although of course Fathers 4 Justice would tell you that the state courts are discriminatory to fathers.
  12. It's quite amazing, mention Islam or shariah law and all the usual suspects fly off at the deep end. All the poor deluded man suggested is that we recognise the option for those who agree to it to use sharah law to resolve civil matters, just as for example Jews do, and in many cases others do with non court based processes such as mediation and arbitration. Clearly some of these situations would have to be registered under UK law to have real effect legally and would then equally have to comply with UK law. As for Islam recognising UK law it is worth pointing out that for example neither Judaism nor Cathicism regognise a divorce made under UK law, so the precedent is alive and kicking quite strongly.

    WB just a little though, the rebirth of western science occurred despite the Catholic church and not a few scientists were severely punished for their discoveries, perhaps the fall of scientific discover in the Arab nations had more to do with their subjugation by the Ottaman Turk who seemed to have less interest in such things than the early Caliphate
  13. Whether the Archbishop was proposing sharia law or any other kind of law is irrelevant. In a democratic, free society we have to all be equal before the law. Not opt outs, no different rules for some, not others.

    It doesn't matter whether a religion choses to recognise that law or not. Even the CofE has different views to the letter of the law on divorce and remarriage. The point is that the law still applies, whether you recognise it or not.
  14. And what is being proposed does not change UK law and is already being practiced in various ways by other religions and groups.
  15. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    Re The Sun headline: "WHAT A BURKHA!!"

    Love it!! 8O :wink:

    I'd have gone with "ARCHBISHOP OF CUNTERBURY" myself!! :oops: :twisted:
  16. That poor high horse must be very weighed down today with all of you on top of it!

    I say again, we already have Sharia 'courts' aka arbitration to which those who attend, agree to be bound, the rulings are not outside UK statute and common law, they could be considered merely 'contracts'. If the Arch of Cant had kept his mouth shut this would have been happily continued without that poor horse being weighed down.
  17. A few points, firstly it seems that not only did the bib bish go of half cocked and thus get taken out of context by all the usual suspect here and elsewhere, he also seemed to be unaware that many muslims already use Shariah law to resolve family matters and certain other civil matters. The family matters bit is important to them as it is to the Jews because it is needed to allow remarriage withing their religion.

    Regularising the process as I see it has two benefits, firstly it brings the process more out into the open and by doing so will probably help those who otherwise may have been 'obliged' to use and undergound system to make their own choice, and at the same time create a properly trained legal system within the mosques of the UK, something that is supported by many islamic clerics.

    The Jews have managed to operate such a system under the umbrella of UK law for many years, and if they can do it why cant the moslems.

    Of course any such process must not contravene UK law and I suspect there will still need to be UK court review of any change in legal status such as in divorce
  18. His Grace was shockingly naive if he thought that his comments wouldn't provoke such a shitstorm. All he has done is add to the feeling among foaming-at-the-mouth rightwingers who think that Armageddon is nigh and Blighty will soon be overrun by gay, benefit scrounging, gypsy, european Muslims (who murdered Diana AND put Maddie in a Burkha!)
    Personally I don't think we will ever see the Justice Secretary replaced by a Seyul-islam or magistrates replaced by kadis. It just ain't British old boy! Even the Muslim community (the majority that is) don't want Sheriat in the UK. So there it is.
  19. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    As I understand it parties in any commercial dispute have freedom of contract in the sense that they can formally agree to any form of arbitration they want. What must not happen is individuals being forced into an arbitration which erodes their rights under UK law, particularly in matters of inheritance or divirce. Whether parties are married or not is a matter for the civil state to legislate.

    Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but I have read somewhere that Sharia rules of evidence are weighted against women and unbelievers?

    As to the learned Druid, 'engage brain before opening mouth' springs to mind. At his age he ought to have noticed how the media spin the utterances of public figures. It occurs to me that it might be easier to become an archibishop than an admiral - something along the lines of what Sir Robert Mark said about the Plod, that the intellectual competition was less than he would encounter in the Army.
  20. The key point is no one should be forced into accepting such processes but of course when they do accept them they should abide by the finding. As I have said the regularisation of Shariah processes should both improve the quality, and make it easier for people to not accept the process, and make it clearer that the process cannot go against national law

Share This Page