quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

I think it's a much bigger issue and concern if they were mentally ill.

I'm not sure what you're asking, Marini. As for punishment/treatment - Here, a plea of insanity isn't usually advisable: you can get chucked into a secure institution (like the notorious Broadmoor Hospital) until you're deemed to be 'safe'. The length of your stay is dependent on what your psychiatric reviewers think - and the Home Secretary can prevent your coming out. (That happened with Myra Hindley, the Moors Murderer.)

As for preventing them becoming that way, or catching them beforehand: I'm beginning to think that it's not an 'either/or' re 'mentally ill' versus 'rational', with these people. They seem mostly to be young, angry, alienated ... they take the ideology they want to 'justify' and 'rationalise' what they do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

Prime Minister Theresa May has previously said that "Many Britons 'benefit greatly' from Sharia law" - a disturbing attitude which raises serious questions about her fitness as Prime Minister and her ability enable the transition away from the EU.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

Prime Minister Theresa May has previously said that "Many Britons 'benefit greatly' from Sharia law" - a disturbing attitude which raises serious questions about her fitness as Prime Minister and her ability enable the transition away from the EU.

At first I was shock that a woman would support sharia law. Then I read the context.

There are thought to be around 100 Sharia Law courts operating throughout the UK, dispensing Islamic justice outside the remit of our own legal system.

Judgements handed down by the informal courts have no legal basis, but there are fears their presence means many Muslim women are not getting access to the justice they deserve.

I'm concerned that Sharia law is operating in a way that could discriminate against women and that could be counter to what is our single rule of law that we have in the UK.


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/688662/Theresa-May-Sharia-Law-inquiry-Prime-Minister-leader-conservative-party-downing-street

In context, she is just saying, rather than allow these sharia courts to operate illegal and mete their own justice within their community, the government should take over regulating them, so that, they can prevent the sharia courts from meting out injustice to women. This is how it will benefit UK.

I have to say, this was exactly what my country did. We have an official Sharia court, but government has to approve which part of it can or cannot be done. Which protect Muslim women from abuse by the courts.

It is a practical solution.

I mean, WTF 100 illegal sharia courts! These fucking Muslims are coming into UK and performing their 7th century barbaric shit to women who should be safer in the UK but are not!

If there was an official sharia court recognized by the UK government, they can protect these women!

But the sad bit is, they have brought their 7th century barbaric culture into the UK to the extent that accepting sharia courts just to monitor over it to protect women who may suffer injustice from it has become a reality. A culture that should NOT exist in the UK at all or anymore, even if it did exist in the past medieval times.

Personally if it would be up to me. They should be arresting all the leaders of those setting up illegal sharia court and throw them behind bars for doing something against civil law. Make it very clear, sharia law is banned in UK, period. No practicing of sharia law!

UK is different from my country. As our indigenous people are Muslims, so sharia law exists before we came and take over, and we must allow them practice.

But UK never had sharia law. So they don't need to accommodate! They should protect women by strictly enforcing the no sharia court thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
If you make them conform to UK standards it is no longer Sharia law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness


The root conflict which must be dealt with when consider Muslims immigrants in Western societies comes down to our insistence on the primacy of Western law above Sharia law and their insistence upon Sharia law prevailing over Western law.

You can't legislate positive attitudes. Islam is anti-gay and there's nothing you can do about that - but you can insist on rigid adherence to Western law. Unfortunately, the UK's new Prime Minister Theresa May has previously said that "Many Britons 'benefit greatly' from Sharia law" - a disturbing attitude which raises serious questions about her fitness as Prime Minister and her ability enable the transition away from the EU.

Sharia Law within the UK is not a court of law. Everyone within the UK has to abide by UK law and if you are Muslim you can seek council, especially over religious matters under Sharia law. What Sharia can’t do is overrule a British court. Sharia councils give mediation over things like family matters, divorce and child access for divorced parents but Sharia divorces are always subject to English law.

Why would we not adopt Sharia law when we’ve been accepting Jewish law for centuries?

Well, because it allows men to beat their wives and it prescribes the death penalty for gay sex. Are you really asking this question Maria?

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1



Tell that to the myriad of Muslims who do not accept that judicial divorce is legal.
Many Muslim women seek a 'divorce' in illegal sharia courts in the UK.
Not counsel or advice, but a Muslim divorce.
The new Muslim advice lines and charities are getting dozens of calls every day from Muslim women who turn to them when a sharia court have refused to hear a divorce case, refused a divorce, or have put ridiculous constraints on a hearing (like insisting that the couple attend together when there is violence involved).

And many Muslim men, especially when their wife has obtained a UK judicial divorce, do not accept it as it is not a Muslim divorce as per Islamic teachings or issued by a sharia court.

quote:


Because Jewish law, in general, is well within UK laws.
Sharia law is anathema to UK rule of law and completely different.
That's why we should never adopt any form of it; ever.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

If you make them conform to UK standards it is no longer Sharia law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness


The root conflict which must be dealt with when consider Muslims immigrants in Western societies comes down to our insistence on the primacy of Western law above Sharia law and their insistence upon Sharia law prevailing over Western law.

You can't legislate positive attitudes. Islam is anti-gay and there's nothing you can do about that - but you can insist on rigid adherence to Western law. Unfortunately, the UK's new Prime Minister Theresa May has previously said that "Many Britons 'benefit greatly' from Sharia law" - a disturbing attitude which raises serious questions about her fitness as Prime Minister and her ability enable the transition away from the EU.

Sharia Law within the UK is not a court of law. Everyone within the UK has to abide by UK law and if you are Muslim you can seek council, especially over religious matters under Sharia law. What Sharia can’t do is overrule a British court. Sharia councils give mediation over things like family matters, divorce and child access for divorced parents but Sharia divorces are always subject to English law.

Why would we not adopt Sharia law when we’ve been accepting Jewish law for centuries?

Well, because it allows men to beat their wives and it prescribes the death penalty for gay sex. Are you really asking this question Maria?

Not in the UK it doesn't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness


The root conflict which must be dealt with when consider Muslims immigrants in Western societies comes down to our insistence on the primacy of Western law above Sharia law and their insistence upon Sharia law prevailing over Western law.

You can't legislate positive attitudes. Islam is anti-gay and there's nothing you can do about that - but you can insist on rigid adherence to Western law. Unfortunately, the UK's new Prime Minister Theresa May has previously said that "Many Britons 'benefit greatly' from Sharia law" - a disturbing attitude which raises serious questions about her fitness as Prime Minister and her ability enable the transition away from the EU.

Sharia Law within the UK is not a court of law. Everyone within the UK has to abide by UK law and if you are Muslim you can seek council, especially over religious matters under Sharia law. What Sharia can’t do is overrule a British court. Sharia councils give mediation over things like family matters, divorce and child access for divorced parents but Sharia divorces are always subject to English law.

Why would we not adopt Sharia law when we’ve been accepting Jewish law for centuries?

Well, because it allows men to beat their wives and it prescribes the death penalty for gay sex. Are you really asking this question Maria?

Not in the UK it doesn't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

Well, then it's not Sharia Law.

Sharia Law is incompatible with Western societies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I defend my statement differently Bama... Vince did not read where I said... in this conflict...But I have no problem defending our actions in WWII.

It must be remembered we and our allies were attacked and defending ourselves. The Axis powers attacked and pursued the aggression. Not one Axis civilian or soldier needed to be killed by our hands if the Axis powers had ceased aggression. At any time they could have surrendered and the killing would have immediately stopped. Every death was by their hand not ours.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I defend my statement differently Bama... Vince did not read where I said... in this conflict...But I have no problem defending our actions in WWII.

It must be remembered we and our allies were attacked and defending ourselves. The Axis powers attacked and pursued the aggression. Not one Axis civilian or soldier needed to be killed by our hands if the Axis powers had ceased aggression. At any time they could have surrendered and the killing would have immediately stopped. Every death was by their hand not ours.

Butch

Destroying cities and the will of non-combatants has been a well accepted American tactic since Sherman marched on Atlanta. Whatever war you are talking about, Butch, this has been part of the rules of engagement. My complaint is that you denied it and held America falsely morally pure. Your notion of "innocent civilian deaths in drone attacks" is a moral apology for an immoral act.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

Well, then it's not Sharia Law.

Sharia Law is incompatible with Western societies.

Neither is Beth Din but that's been alive and well here since Oliver Cromwell.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

Well, then it's not Sharia Law.

Sharia Law is incompatible with Western societies.

Neither is Beth Din but that's been alive and well here since Oliver Cromwell.

Quote me one aspect of Beth Din which conflicts with Western law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
And BTW, the KKK does not exist anymore. Those clowns who call themselves that are not KKK, they are a bunch of assholes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
And BTW, the KKK does not exist anymore. Those clowns who call themselves that are not KKK, they are a bunch of assholes.

The same could be said of the Republican party. You going to try to argue that one about them as well?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
And BTW, the KKK does not exist anymore. Those clowns who call themselves that are not KKK, they are a bunch of assholes.

The same could be said of the Republican party. You going to try to argue that one about them as well?

No, many of them are assholes. But the fact remains that the smart ones don't seem to want to be President. They know math and they know the big crash is coming and do not want to preside over it and as such, put out totally unacceptable candidates. Trump is like a wild card.

But the MAIN republican party bears no resemblance to what it used to be. On that we can agree. While Goldwater wasn't perfect, he was right to want to keep religion out of politics. If he would have won, he would kinda be the party leader and they might have the power today. Now we got Trump, and he really does have a 50//50 chance of winning. But if past Presidets had not wrecked the economy, like Bush with Iraq and Obama with the ACA, perhaps someone smart would run. But not now.

I'll tell you this, if you completely financed my campaign I would not run. Well maybe. I could probably cool things down n the middle east a bit, but I know there is very little I can do about our domestic problems. Big business owns the place. It is set up just the way they want it and if a President goes against it you get Nixoned, or Trafficanted, or JFKed.

Enough digression.

T^T