But these 'courts' aren't legally binding - and all decisions could be overturned by UK law (as they are completely and utterly superseded by it). The power of these courts comes solely from how they are perceived by their local communities - and not from UK law at all.
Even if you form a 'contract', like a marriage, in a Sharia court, it doesn't mean that you are married in the eyes of the state. For any decision to become legally binding, it has to be signed off by a court.
Fair enough. So then why do they exist at all if this is the case? That's sort of what I was getting at in relation to people seeking assimilation. They only seem to exist as an obstacle to it, however minor it's effect it may or may not actually be.
From a cursory look, I assume that people opt into such a thing in the same way people would opt for arbitration or something. I didn't mean to imply that things going on there would contradict national law, just that the standards of something like Sharia compared to Common law....well I'm not an expert but they don't seem to be very compatible, do they?
This doesn't mean that I don't believe there is a potential issue of sharia decisions (the whole concept of the system is anathema to me) - but I feel that fears of this UK sharia takeover are completely unfounded.
Well, I wouldn't have assumed such a thing of you in any case, but I think it is worthy of concern. Not that I think the way politicians propagandize it isn't demagoguery or anything, but the notion that it's somehow acceptable for such things to exist in a secular society just seems bizarre to me. Rebellion against these ways of thinking are the same reason why the Pope no longer has the same power he once did, and why the divine right of kings is disregarded when it comes to actual governance. This is me probably being hyperbolic, but I think you see my point?
Ah, well what you quoted wasn't directed at you specifically, just my general thoughts on the guy's idea. He basically suggests that we somehow simultaneously send all refugees back where they came from, followed by a literal army of engineers. surveyors, prospectors, architects, city-planners, etc in tow, assembled by every nation in the West, locked hand in hand to rid the territory of all the problems that made these people flee in the first place (never mind that this won't be accomplished without bloodshed). I mean, it seems like the chances of such a thing happening are lower than us being visited by extra terrestrials by this time next week. That's what I meant when I referred to a Utopian vision, not the current prospects of any European country who have taken in a significant amount of refugees. I think it's overblown, but it still remains to be seen what effect it could have. And I personally have a problem with that brand of multiculturalism...if that's what people think they're promoting by sanctioning Sharia law courts/arbiters/tribunals, I haven't the faintest.
Of course I don't believe that. As to what those things could be and how effective they would be, I couldn't really say. But here it seems like some people are still invested in the notion of an interventionist policy ($$$$$$$), which is garbage to me. I don't know how that much isn't self-evident at this point.
Fair enough. So then why do they exist at all if this is the case? That's sort of what I was getting at in relation to people seeking assimilation. They only seem to exist as an obstacle to it, however minor it's effect it may or may not actually be.
People like their religion to be there to fix their problems - right or wrong, they trust the accuracy of their faith to sort all their problems.
It's similar to people asking their bishop/whatever for advice on what to do following a perceived sin - just with a false coating of the legitimacy of legality.
Falls under the whole umbrella of freedom - to do and think as you like (within the law).... Far less egregious then people praying for their family members to get better, rather than taking them to a hospital.
Also, yes. It is really bad for integration.
Ideally, I'd rather people trusted the rule of law to sort out these things. Hopefully these kind of courts will become less prevalent in time.
Till then, as long as no one is getting hurt, I value their freedom enough to allow them this.
Dunno enough about the limits of sharia, but I do know that, in England at least, few courts would pass judgement in a way which would break UK law.
Ah, well what you quoted wasn't directed at you specifically, just my general thoughts on the guy's idea. He basically suggests that we somehow simultaneously send all refugees back where they came from, followed by a literal army of engineers. surveyors, prospectors, architects, city-planners, etc in tow, assembled by every nation in the West, locked hand in hand to rid the territory of all the problems that made these people flee in the first place (never mind that this won't be accomplished without bloodshed). I mean, it seems like the chances of such a thing happening are lower than us being visited by extra terrestrials by this time next week.
For the UK - this is the website for the office of national statistics - it has stats on most things, from migration statistics to religious ones.
It's a good start to check on suspicious sounding statistics.
It's similar to people asking their bishop/whatever for advice on what to do following a perceived sin - just with a false coating of the legitimacy of legality.
Yeah, I just don't really jive with this "false coating of legitimacy" for the sake of "comfort" that you mention. I can only imagine the type of situations where people are taken advantage of because they think the rule of law is the same between the country they come from and the UK, simply because these Sharia courts exist.
Also, yes. It is really bad for integration.
Ideally, I'd rather people trusted the rule of law to sort out these things. Hopefully these kind of courts will become less prevalent in time.
I mean, that's the thing. Unless some sort of review finds that these things shouldn't exist or that they require greater scrutiny, I don't see how they'll become less prevalent given the situation in this part of the world. They would only become more prevalent.
I mean, that's the thing. Unless some sort of review finds that these things shouldn't exist or that they require greater scrutiny, I don't see how they'll become less prevalent given the situation in this part of the world. They would only become more prevalent.
Problem is I am not sure what the best way to 'scrutinise' them would be.
The fact that they have no real legal power means that the only 'wrong' thing they are doing is something which they can argue is purely down to the decision of the claimants/accused. By this I mean, the accused wants to be judged under their law, and the accuser wants to use the sharia court to solve the issue - If the accused doesn't like the decision, they are well within their rights to tell the 'judges' to go and shove their decision.
I mean, I guess the government could suggest people to use the real courts for these cases, but I feel it would be hard to enforce any restrictions against them (at least in their current state).
The fact that they have no real legal power means that the only 'wrong' thing they are doing is something which they can argue is purely down to the decision of the claimants/accused. By this I mean, the accused wants to be judged under their law, and the accuser wants to use the sharia court to solve the issue - If the accused doesn't like the decision, they are well within their rights to tell the 'judges' to go and shove their decision.
Yeah, but I sort of worry about how family law is handled in the countries some immigrants come from and what they expect to get out of using such an avenue. I'm mostly ignorant on a such a thing, but given the anecdotal evidence, it seems to be a choice that would work out in the man's favor more than it does the woman's. And then there's all these reports of "forced marriages" and the type of coercion even the mention of such a thing implies. But it's hard to know what's legit and what's propaganda I guess.
Yes, their houses were destoryed, partially due to the west although not entirely.
The solution?
Rebuld their houses, would you disagree?
I never heard of this black players issue, would like to see it.
Although I am inclined to think it was mostly a problem of foreign players, the french team not representing France, but I cannot say until I see it.
Correct.
Muslims have much more children, and many aren't freindly who are willing to be part of the west, hence the problem.
I didn't say any of that.
Muslims can be Europeans.
Look at the migrants, many of them would identify as muslims first and foremost, saying that they hate the west and want sharia in its stead.
This is a problem, if they wouldn't, no problem.
Quite a lot and on a daily basis.
I agree, the average person wants to live their peacful lives.
The lives of muslims was destoryed in the middle east, hence we should restore it by all means.
'Radical muslims', a large group of people, do not want that, they are the problem and are a problem to Europe and in the middle east, they are also a major threat to muslims, the 'wrong kind' of muslims.
Getting rid of 'radical islam' and rebuilding the middle east should be at the best interest of peacful muslims, or am I wrong here?
Sure there are.
In Islam such ideas are mainstream and wide spread.
Crazy christians exist, not as many.
Crazy muslims exist, and a lot of them.
This is the option left to many people, mainly other peaceful muslims and non-muslims in the middle east right now.
Islam, in its radical version, is a threat to human civilization.
The end in not nigh, the point of no return is.
What are your sources for all the fiction you say? Seems like you understand next to nothing.
Sending Muslims back to their countries is also a stupid idea. The reason why they are refugees is because their home is too violent for them to stay, thus they seek a safe asylum. By sending them back, we're playing right into the ISIS hands as they'll try to recruit these people using their anger towards the West. If anything, we should bomb the shit out of Middle East, and try to keep the innocent civilians out of harm's way.
I agree in that US and European involvement has caused a great deal of the conflict there but on the other hand I don't see how the US and Europe could just leave. Can you imagine what would happen if they simply did that? Take the Iraq situation. The conflict was started over a decade ago. But the US just leaving did not help end the conflict, if anything the civil war kinda picked up the pace since then. What would happen if the US and Europe just left? I would think something at least similar to that, there would be a huge vacuum and the conflicts would escalate from there. Imagine ISIS left alone with no US or europe to keep it at bay. Imagine whatever other groups being left to deal solely with whatever resistance their own countries can put up. And even then, ISIS and terrorism are the stuff the media focuses on, odds are there is a lot more than that going on in each individual place. Even if the current situations were caused by the US and Europe, that does not mean the solution is for them to immediately leave. That said, I do think they should at least aim to avoid getting involved in new conflicts and stop this whole toppling dictators thing so as to avoid at least having a hand in new conflicts.
I agree in that US and European involvement has caused a great deal of the conflict there but on the other hand I don't see how the US and Europe could just leave. Can you imagine what would happen if they simply did that? Take the Iraq situation. The conflict was started over a decade ago. But the US just leaving did not help end the conflict, if anything the civil war kinda picked up the pace since then. What would happen if the US and Europe just left? I would think something at least similar to that, there would be a huge vacuum and the conflicts would escalate from there. Imagine ISIS left alone with no US or europe to keep it at bay. Imagine whatever other groups being left to deal solely with whatever resistance their own countries can put up. And even then, ISIS and terrorism are the stuff the media focuses on, odds are there is a lot more than that going on in each individual place. Even if the current situations were caused by the US and Europe, that does not mean the solution is for them to immediately leave. That said, I do think they should at least aim to avoid getting involved in new conflicts and stop this whole toppling dictators thing so as to avoid at least having a hand in new conflicts.
So in a nutshell, between the US and the EU, they've created such an environment where the weaker nations are dependent on them sticking around, even if they are using them as blast shields? What a jolly world we live in eh?
So in a nutshell, between the US and the EU, they've created such an environment where the weaker nations are dependent on them sticking around, even if they are using them as blast shields? What a jolly world we live in eh?
Well, yeah. but that shipped is sailed... Right now they have a presence in plenty of middle east places and leaving does not mean those places will suddenly be stable. If anything odds are the opposite is true.
@Philia
I disagree with a politics of nonintervention.
It would make things much worse.
Just think back to the lybia conflict: The conflict is hailed nowadays as a 'mistake of the west'.
BUt lets look what happened: At the time it happened, Obama did not want to go in and did not want to interfere. It was the arab league which called him to arms (together with France and britain). The arab world called for US help, just as they did in syria. The same arab world, i might add, which is quick to blame the US for any given Problem. And so it happened this time too: now the US gets blamed along with the whole NATO for destroying lybia, even if the whole arab world agreed on Intervention before.
And rightfully so: If the US and europe had left Gaddafi to sort his own Problems, we would have looked at a syria Situation right at the borders of europe. NO matter how bad the Situation of lybia is right now, it would have been worse without the Intervention.
If anything, the Problem was that the west was not there long enonugh to build it up again. HOwever, the west did exactly that in iraq and Afghanistan and it did not help (and no matter what one says about those wars: The build up period was an honest effort).
This time, the US reacts by arming local Groups and providing air Support. And what is the laternative here? Without US interventions, it was a real possibility that the whole kurdish parts of iraq and syria fall into the Hands of Isis. And a lot more of iraq.
Why would the US just let that happen? To which benefit?
The US was, again, initially (and rightuflly) blamed to have destabilized the Region and then left it alone. People AGAIN called for an US Intervention, including the arab league. And AGAIN now the US is there to take the blame.
This is a rigged by now.
If the US would not help local Groups with airstrikes in iraq and in lybia, then Isis would have a footholdhere and probably take more of those countries.
And that Situation is honestly unacceptable.
It is a nice dream that the arab world gets it shit together and fights Isis together. But a dream nonetheless.
@Philia
I disagree with a politics of nonintervention.
It would make things much worse.
Just think back to the lybia conflict: The conflict is hailed nowadays as a 'mistake of the west'.
BUt lets look what happened: At the time it happened, Obama did not want to go in and did not want to interfere. It was the arab league which called him to arms (together with France and britain). The arab world called for US help, just as they did in syria. The same arab world, i might add, which is quick to blame the US for any given Problem. And so it happened this time too: now the US gets blamed along with the whole NATO for destroying lybia, even if the whole arab world agreed on Intervention before.
And rightfully so: If the US and europe had left Gaddafi to sort his own Problems, we would have looked at a syria Situation right at the borders of europe. NO matter how bad the Situation of lybia is right now, it would have been worse without the Intervention.
If anything, the Problem was that the west was not there long enonugh to build it up again. HOwever, the west did exactly that in iraq and Afghanistan and it did not help (and no matter what one says about those wars: The build up period was an honest effort).
This time, the US reacts by arming local Groups and providing air Support. And what is the laternative here? Without US interventions, it was a real possibility that the whole kurdish parts of iraq and syria fall into the Hands of Isis. And a lot more of iraq.
Why would the US just let that happen? To which benefit?
The US was, again, initially (and rightuflly) blamed to have destabilized the Region and then left it alone. People AGAIN called for an US Intervention, including the arab league. And AGAIN now the US is there to take the blame.
This is a rigged by now.
If the US would not help local Groups with airstrikes in iraq and in lybia, then Isis would have a footholdhere and probably take more of those countries.
And that Situation is honestly unacceptable.
It is a nice dream that the arab world gets it shit together and fights Isis together. But a dream nonetheless.
Well, it is true that the US gets the short end of the deal in that countries ask them to interfere and them go on ahead and blame them when things go to shit. It's a loose loose situation if you will.
But why do you say the situation would have been worst if the US did not interfere? From what I can tell the worst that would have happened had the US not interfered is that Ghadaffi would simply still be there rather than a full blown Syria like situation.
A big part of the issue here, IMO, is that an area merely being stable because the US is there has the implication that the US is basically in charge of those areas. Sure, the arab world wanted the intervention... but what about freaking Lybia? How many people there supported Ghadaffi? Even if a majority of people don't support him, that hardly means they want intervention of other countries into their affairs.... People simply do not take such things kindly, there is a whole issue of range and resentment to consider here. This is why Obama's policy at least makes a bit of sense in that regard, it's not the US picking a side and winning against someone, it is the US helping arabs take back control (even if the strategy is far from perfect). The US should do it's part to help out places which are already in trouble but it shouldn't be so quick to just start new conflicts under the idea that it makes sense to simply depose of dictators. Doing that simply does not yield positive results.
@Philia
I disagree with a politics of nonintervention.
It would make things much worse.
Just think back to the lybia conflict: The conflict is hailed nowadays as a 'mistake of the west'.
BUt lets look what happened: At the time it happened, Obama did not want to go in and did not want to interfere. It was the arab league which called him to arms (together with France and britain). The arab world called for US help, just as they did in syria. The same arab world, i might add, which is quick to blame the US for any given Problem. And so it happened this time too: now the US gets blamed along with the whole NATO for destroying lybia, even if the whole arab world agreed on Intervention before.
And rightfully so: If the US and europe had left Gaddafi to sort his own Problems, we would have looked at a syria Situation right at the borders of europe. NO matter how bad the Situation of lybia is right now, it would have been worse without the Intervention.
If anything, the Problem was that the west was not there long enonugh to build it up again. HOwever, the west did exactly that in iraq and Afghanistan and it did not help (and no matter what one says about those wars: The build up period was an honest effort).
This time, the US reacts by arming local Groups and providing air Support. And what is the laternative here? Without US interventions, it was a real possibility that the whole kurdish parts of iraq and syria fall into the Hands of Isis. And a lot more of iraq.
Why would the US just let that happen? To which benefit?
The US was, again, initially (and rightuflly) blamed to have destabilized the Region and then left it alone. People AGAIN called for an US Intervention, including the arab league. And AGAIN now the US is there to take the blame.
This is a rigged by now.
If the US would not help local Groups with airstrikes in iraq and in lybia, then Isis would have a footholdhere and probably take more of those countries.
And that Situation is honestly unacceptable.
It is a nice dream that the arab world gets it shit together and fights Isis together. But a dream nonetheless.
NATO's goal was to get rid of Gaddafi. And the civil war occurred after Gaddafi was removed from power.
Gaddafi, as bad as he was, under his rule, Libya was a better place than it is now. Also, Libya was one of the richest country of Africa. I understand there was some political crisis going on, but military intervention by NATO and US was not the thing needed then. Things should've been resolved in Libya by Libyan parties.
Same can be said about Iraq.The Iraqi invasion was a geostrategic powerplay, designed to seize a huge amount of money and resources for the US and the UK, as well as our Israeli and Saudi Arabian allies. And the war on Iraq was based on false information. The goal was actually to usurp Saddam and get a west friendly government in power.But did the action made Iraq a better place? I don't think so.
Similar situation in Syria. US and NATO want Asad off power. And the unrest is also due to them arming anti Asad frictions and bombing.
West does their part to create unrest in those countries. That should stop. Political crisis of the Arab world should be resolved by them.
The record of human rights violation by Mao Zedong's regime is much bigger than all the Arab dictators combined. So, did the west needed to do anything to usurp him? No, they didn't. More like they couldn't. I don't think China would've been better with West intervention than it is today. Forced democracy is not the best thing for a country. And West, NATO, US should stay away from other countries business.
Well, yeah. but that shipped is sailed... Right now they have a presence in plenty of middle east places and leaving does not mean those places will suddenly be stable. If anything odds are the opposite is true.
Even though the West are bombing some countries, these countries have no choice but to let them continue. And this is a situation created by US and EU, that's what he meant, I guess.
Well, it is true that the US gets the short end of the deal in that countries ask them to interfere and them go on ahead and blame them when things go to shit. It's a loose loose situation if you will.
But why do you say the situation would have been worst if the US did not interfere? From what I can tell the worst that would have happened had the US not interfered is that Ghadaffi would simply still be there rather than a full blown Syria like situation.
A big part of the issue here, IMO, is that an area merely being stable because the US is there has the implication that the US is basically in charge of those areas. Sure, the arab world wanted the intervention... but what about freaking Lybia? How many people there supported Ghadaffi? Even if a majority of people don't support him, that hardly means they want intervention of other countries into their affairs.... People simply do not take such things kindly, there is a whole issue of range and resentment to consider here. This is why Obama's policy at least makes a bit of sense in that regard, it's not the US picking a side and winning against someone, it is the US helping arabs take back control (even if the strategy is far from perfect). The US should do it's part to help out places which are already in trouble but it shouldn't be so quick to just start new conflicts under the idea that it makes sense to simply depose of dictators. Doing that simply does not yield positive results.
Gaddafi has lost control and similar Islamist Forces were on the rise. What makes you think Gaddafi could have claimed his power back?
The Nato simply established a no fly Zone, thus disabled his possiblity to use aircrafts to bombard cities. Which he absolutely did before, he even used Military ships to Shell down on the public if he saw fit.
I always find it amazing how the NATO gets blame for targetting civillians even when it actually brings down someone who Targets civilians on purpose and with a Grand scale.
And Gaddafi went into that 'bomb em all' state before the Intervention. What makes you think that he could have got the Situation under control? We talk about the same Kind of war Guerilla war we see a lot nowadays. He would have bombed down whole east lybia and probably without actually getting victory. He lost half the Country even before the Intervention. He would not have lost but he would also not have won, at least not without years of bloodshed.
Where is nonintervention the better course here? There was an UN Mandate for the no fly Zone, and not without reason.
I remember all the blame the US got for not acting fast enough back then and how the all pressured Obama into doing it.
It is just Kind of a pet peeve of mine of someone (and there are People who do that, not in this thread tho) renders Obama as basically a warlord due to that Intervention.
THe Thing is, the US under Obama would be more than happy if the middle east solves ist own conflicts.
It is a bit like with europe before the world wars: The US didnt want to interfere in all that shit europe was getting itself into in the first worldwar and acted very late, which is, today, largely seen as a mistake.
The reality is that, yes, some parts of the middle east Need stabilizing powers. It would be great if the arab world does it, but it is torn apart by a power struggle between some big Players like Iran, Saudi arabia and partially Turkey.
I agree that the new way of supporting local Groups while providing air Support is promising, which is why i can understand even less why someone would be against that Kind of Intervention. That is exactly the Kind of Intervention the arab world actually wants, apart from the People who see the devil in the US anyway.
I simplify, i am Aware of that. A sunni living in ISIS territory wont like the US supporting kurds or shia militias, because those might very well kill the sunni People. But it is probably still the better Option then letting Isis get a foothold or getting own footsoldiers onto the ground.
NATO's goal was to get rid of Gaddafi. And the civil war occurred after Gaddafi was removed from power.
Gaddafi, as bad as he was, under his rule, Libya was a better place than it is now. Also, Libya was one of the richest country of Africa. I understand there was some political crisis going on, but military intervention by NATO and US was not the thing needed then. Things should've been resolved in Libya by Libyan parties.
Same can be said about Iraq.The Iraqi invasion was a geostrategic powerplay, designed to seize a huge amount of money and resources for the US and the UK, as well as our Israeli and Saudi Arabian allies. And the war on Iraq was based on false information. The goal was actually to usurp Saddam and get a west friendly government in power.But did the action made Iraq a better place? I don't think so.
Similar situation in Syria. US and NATO want Asad off power. And the unrest is also due to them arming anti Asad frictions and bombing.
West does their part to create unrest in those countries. That should stop. Political crisis of the Arab world should be resolved by them.
The record of human rights violation by Mao Zedong's regime is much bigger than all the Arab dictators combined. So, did the west needed to do anything to usurp him? No, they didn't. More like they couldn't. I don't think China would've been better with West intervention than it is today. Forced democracy is not the best thing for a country. And West, NATO, US should stay away from other countries business.
The civil war broke out when Gaddafi had lost power already. Lybia was a better place before, but it would not have stayed to be that place either way.
As i wrote to kkck, Gaddafi was already bombing down his own cities while the rebels had all the east of lybia. This would have been bloodshed and cities to ashes for years to come.
Every war or Intervention has geostrategical reasons. If something is not in some way beneficial to a state, a politician will not decide that. Elseways he would be a bad politician.
HOwever, the questions is WHY they wanted Gaddafi to go. And this is simply because he lost power and because it would be a raging war at europe's borders if the NATO had not intervened. Before that, France was happily making deals with Gaddafi. And i can really get behind that reasoning.
It is a MUCH worse Scenario to just let a dictator bomb down cities some kilometres away from europe than bringing this to a quick end.
The thought that Gaddafi would have got the Situation under control without annihilating his whole east is not a very probable thought.
AS I wrote before: You can never know how something turns out on the Long run. The US was also reluctant to fight against nazi Germany, which turned out to be a mistake. Why would the US let a Terror organization which has sworn to destroy the whole take control of the arab world and africa when the People in the arab world and africa actually want the US to intervene?
Why would the US let dictators and terrorists bomb or airstrike civilians ? Just because they are scared that their Military Intervention might accidently kill civilians? I find it selifish to let slaughter on that scale happen just due to being afraid to let your own Hands get dirty.
And yes, as i said, there are alwaysgeostrategical reasons, but that does not make an Intervention wrong, nor does it make nonintervention better.
So they've fucked it up and are continuing to do so, but if they leave, it'll be open season for any and all militia? Jeez why can't we all worship cats?
So they've fucked it up and are continuing to do so, but if they leave, it'll be open season for any and all militia? Jeez why can't we all worship cats?
That's what I meant when I referred to a Utopian vision, not the current prospects of any European country who have taken in a significant amount of refugees. I think it's overblown, but it still remains to be seen what effect it could have. And I personally have a problem with that brand of multiculturalism...if that's what people think they're promoting by sanctioning Sharia law courts/arbiters/tribunals, I haven't the faintest.
