sharia law in britain inevitable

[yossarian22]

They are racist, you want racism to be seen? Little children to see racist things and copy it?

Ah yes, the 'Think about the children!' line of attack.
Free speech means hearing things you disagree with or hate. Accept it and move on. If you don't like hearing things you dislike, head to your friendly neighborhood totalitarian state.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Well some Muslims are crazy whackjobs who go out and try to KILL as many infidels as they can. Is that a good thing? Perhaps we should ban Islam while we're at it then.

YES! DO IT!

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Ah yes, the 'Think about the children!' line of attack.
Free speech means hearing things you disagree with or hate. Accept it and more on. If you don't like, head to your friendly neighborhood totalitarian state.

So you agree with racism.

 

[Fluffy]

On the matter of the BNP: I don't think the BNP should be banned and I think it is wrong to say that they have killed people. They haven't but a tiny minority of their members have. Having said that, I don't agree with their ideas at all and have campaigned against them in Bradford extensively. I feel that this is the best way to combat them and would encourage anybody who disagrees with them to do the same. To give you an idea of how effective it is, we increased the lead of a Lib Dem councillor on a BNP councillor from 50 to 1000 votes turning it from a swing ward to a secure Lib Dem seat. Get out there and do something about it because you can make a difference.

Heya Zephyr,

Why though? Why should minorities get a separate legal system? Why shouldn't everybody be bound to the same law? Here, how about we allow people to import their local laws wherever they go. Now my girlfriend's family can smoke all the pot they want and hire prostitutes right? There is no legitimate reason to allow these people to have a separate legal system in the place of the law of the land.

If you have already decided that there is no legitimate reason to allow a separate legal system for some in a country then I don't think there is much point in answering the question. However, assuming that you have not already made up your mind:

Firstly, I don't feel it should be as extensive as allowing everybody to follow their own personal laws. I also don't think that the fact that these laws are their laws adds any legitimacy to their inclusion just as the laws of the land aren't legitimate because they are the laws of the land.

I believe in a government that is united in things like foreign policy but devolves certain powers to the people. In the UK we already have regional government and local government which provide powers to localities over issues in which a national government would not handle in the interests of the people who live there. I don't think that a national government whose power base is in London has any right to pass laws on local issues affecting the people of Yorkshire (for example).

However, given this principle of local devolution of power, I also think we should devolve power to minorities as well so that the majorities cannot force decisions upon minorities when those decisions are about minority issues.

For example, I don't think that heterosexuals should have any say on whether homosexuals get to marry or not because this is an issue that affects homosexuals and does not affect heterosexuals. This is just like how London is cannot set the council tax in York or Reading or Bristol. Only the local councils in each area because the only people who have a right to make a decision on that issue are the people living in those locations.

In a similar way, I would like to see an introduction of a limited version of sharia if that is indeed what Muslims in Britain want. I believe that this is what the archbishop is advocating and not a full sale adoption of sharia in its entirety. The principle I outline above should be the guide as to what is adopted and what is rejected. As long as the principle is not violated, Muslims may pick which bits they wish to adopt.

Additionally, I feel that if any minority wishes to be held accountable under national law instead of minority law then that is fine. In this way, smaller minorities in minority groups are not oppressed either.

 

[Zephyr]

YES! DO IT!

Ok great! While we're at it, there really is a lot of music advocating a very violent lifestyle. Also, the old testament advocates a death penalty to all sorts of people, including all nonbelievers. That just can't fly right? By your logic we should also ban all violent music, Judaism, and Christianity, right?

EDIT for Fluffy: Well I can sort of see what you're getting at, but I must ask why this is needed. Are Muslims being denied rights that other Englishmen get? In the case of gay marriage, gay folks are simply not allowed a right that straight folks are. If London were to tax York then there would clearly be a problem of them stepping over their boundaries. What I don't see, however, is how this fits in to giving the Muslims a separate legal system. Perhaps you could point that out for me?

 

[Fluffy]

Well I can sort of see what you're getting at, but I must ask why this is needed. Are Muslims being denied rights that other Englishmen get? In the case of gay marriage, gay folks are simply not allowed a right that straight folks are. If London were to tax York then there would clearly be a problem of them stepping over their boundaries. What I don't see, however, is how this fits in to giving the Muslims a separate legal system. Perhaps you could point that out for me?

As far as I am aware, Muslims are not being denied rights that other citizens of the UK receive (saying Englishmen is a bit like describing Americans as Texans. Its misleading because the English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, inhabitants of the isle of mann etc. do not get different rights).

However, whilst I believe that everybody should receive the same basic rights, I don't think that everybody should be constrained by exactly the same law.

There is no right to marriage in the UK. It is just a law. I feel that this law should only apply to those who want it. If people in York don't want to be able to marry each other then they should be able to ban marriage.

I don't think that anybody is advocating that Muslims should be given an entirely separate legal system but just that they should be able to decide issues that affect them without interference from the majority because those issues do not affect the majority. This is, at least, the only extent of sharia that I would find acceptable in the UK.

For example, why should I be able to tell Muslims that they cannot marry multiple wives?

 

[Zephyr]

For example, why should I be able to tell Muslims that they cannot marry multiple wives?

Who says that anybody should be restricted from marrying multiple wives. If you wanted to change this, you work up the momentum to change the law, not make an exception.

 

[yossarian22]

So you agree with racism.

This barely deserves a response but....
I will defend anybody's right to free speech regardless of how repulsive their views and statements are to me.

 

[Fluffy]

Who says that anybody should be restricted from marrying multiple wives. If you wanted to change this, you work up the momentum to change the law, not make an exception.

Because I have no right to tell Christians that they can marry multiple wives. I realise they can just opt out but such a possibility will be there in the system I propose so I don't see the difference.

Besides, it is also about the political ramifications of such a policy. Currently you can't get gay marriage in America and its not good enough for us to have to go and beg to the Christian right to allow us to have our marriage. They shouldn't have the right to tell us that we can't. It is about empowering minorities and saying that majorities can screw off when it doesn't affect them. These are important consequences as well. It is not just about the affects of the specific laws.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

So you agree with racism.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Attributed to Voltaire

 

[Zephyr]

Because I have no right to tell Christians that they can marry multiple wives. I realise they can just opt out but such a possibility will be there in the system I propose so I don't see the difference.

So we shouldn't allow gay marriage because we have no right to tell Christians that they can marry a same-sex person? I'm not so sure I get your reasoning here to be honest.

 

[Fluffy]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Attributed to Voltaire

Nonetheless, if you expend more energy on supporting the rights of people to say racist things than you do on combating racism then this sentiment seems very hollow indeed.

So we shouldn't allow gay marriage because we have no right to tell Christians that they can marry a same-sex person? I'm not so sure I get your reasoning here to be honest.

We should allow gay people to decide whether they want marriage. It should not be up to straight Christians whether gay people get to be married. It should be up to gay people.

It is not enough that we are given permission by straight people to have marriage. We deserve to choose for ourselves.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Nonetheless, if you expend more energy on supporting the rights of people to say racist things than you do on combating racism then this sentiment seems very hollow indeed.

You can allow freedom of speech and education at the same time. A person can have the right to say it, and I have the right to ignore them and let them suffer the consequences of their actions.

 

[Fluffy]

You can allow freedom of speech and education at the same time. A person can have the right to say it, and I have the right to ignore them and let them suffer the consequences of their actions.

Right but Voltaire is talking about fighting to the death to protect the right of free speech. I'm just saying that we should spend an equal or greater amount of effort combating the things we disapprove of (without affecting free speech) or it seems rather pointless.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Right but Voltaire is talking about fighting to the death to protect the right of free speech. I'm just saying that we should spend an equal or greater amount of effort combating the things we disapprove of (without affecting free speech) or it seems rather pointless.

Well, of course. Thats part of what gave birth to literature and art. Discontentment with everything around you.

 

[kai]

look Britain has laws passed by parliament that have taken centuries in the making , sharia is a religious law which has principles and punishments that conflict with British law , now i don't want sharia law , French law , American law or any other law except that which has gone through the process of my own parliament, is it too much to ask that adherents of sharia go and live in the land of sharia, if i wanted sun and sea i would go and live in Spain. even if it had Spanish law

 

[Don Penguinoini]

What kai says makes sense, but some muslims find this racism, franklly, they are jokes.

 

[kai]

What kai says makes sense, but some muslims find this racism, franklly, they are jokes.

why is it racism ? if you want to live under sharia live in Saudi,the worlds your oyster you dont have to live on these rain lashed shores

 

[Don Penguinoini]

I dont know, i am not muslim.

 

[kai]

I dont know, i am not muslim.

i didnt mean you ,penguino and i didnt mean muslims i meant those who are calling for sharia in britain, when there is a lovely country already using it with executioners and everything and its only a few hours away by plane.