# Anti-Sharia Rally called by OneLawForAll Nov21st 2009 London



## durruti02 (Oct 11, 2009)

Date: Saturday 21 November 2009
Time: 1200-1400
Venue: North Carriage Drive, Hyde Park, London (Closest underground: Marble Arch)

SHOW YOUR OPPOSITION TO SHARIA LAW AND ALL RELIGIOUS-BASED TRIBUNALS IN BRITAIN, IRAN, IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, PAKISTAN, SOMALIA AND ELSEWHERE
DEMAND AN END TO CULTURAL RELATIVISM AND RACISM
DEMAND ONE SECULAR LAW AND UNIVERSAL RIGHTS
DEFEND THE RIGHT TO ASYLUM FOR THOSE WHO HAVE FLED SHARIA

Confirmed Speakers include Nazanin Afshin-Jam, Mina Ahadi, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Roy Brown, AC Grayling, Rahila Gupta, Johann Hari, Marieme Helie-Lucas, Cllr Mehboob Khan, Houzan Mahmoud, Maryam Namazie, Taslima Nasrin, David Pollock, Fariborz Pooya, Terry Sanderson, Selina aka Jus1Jam, Issam Shukri, Sohaila Sharifi, Bahram Soroush, Peter Tatchell… There will be a comedy act by Nick Doody and much more. 

For more information, contact: Tel: +44 (0) 7719166731 or onelawforall@gmail.com

"here are less than two months to go to our November 21 rally, which will be held from 1200-1400 at North Carriage Drive in London’s Hyde Park to mark Universal Children’s Day and International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women.

The rally aims to raise still further our opposition to Sharia and religious-based laws in Britain and the world, including the imposition of Sharia this year in Somalia and Pakistan's Swat region and of the ‘rape laws’ in Afghanistan. It also aims to show our solidarity with people standing up to political Islam everywhere, including in Iran, and our support for universal rights and secularism. The rally will also defend the right to asylum for those who have fled Sharia and calls for an end to racism and cultural relativism.

Please try to come if you can. It is important for decent people everywhere to stand up to the right-wing political Islamic movement and defend humanity. Doing so will also help push back the far right in its attempts at hijacking the issue of Sharia law to advance its anti-immigrant and racist agenda.

Tell others about the rally and encourage them to join. Also please sign our petition calling for a ban on Sharia law if you haven’t. Over 17,000 people have done so already and they represent only the tip of the iceberg of opposition." maryam narmazie


----------



## october_lost (Oct 11, 2009)

This needs supporting for sure.


----------



## peacepete (Oct 11, 2009)

shame about the group's name!


----------



## newbie (Oct 11, 2009)

funny old world

when one lot oppose "Radical Islam, and Sharia Law. Not Muslims, but Radical Muslims." they get into fisticuffs with anti-fascist demonstrators but when another lot say something very nearly identical they need supporting.

don't get me wrong, I'm no casual and as a good liberal I'll unhesitatingly do whatever Yasmin Alibhai-Brown thinks is the right.  But it's all a bit  and  with a dash of


----------



## Jonti (Oct 11, 2009)

This is in danger of mixing issues and stoking hone-grown racism.

Certainly, there's a lot wrong with Sharia, and with Beth Din, and with "ecclesistical" courts in general.  We don't need bearded weirdos making laws and running gaols, like we used to have.

So any embrace of Sharia, or other religious law must be voluntary, and within the parameters of ordinary civil and criminal law.  But if people want to use religious institutions to mediate in disputes, make the decision freely, and this is done within the regular framework of the law, then it's no-one else's business.

Unfortunately, this group seems to lump the "Sharia" of the North-West Frontier with UK practice.  I think this is intended, militant secularism is their thing.

A tolerant society cannot in all conscience legislate against vicars and the like arbitrating in disputes, if both parties want that.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 11, 2009)

newbie said:


> funny old world
> 
> when one lot oppose "Radical Islam, and Sharia Law. Not Muslims, but Radical Muslims." they get into fisticuffs with anti-fascist demonstrators but when another lot say something very nearly identical they need supporting.
> 
> don't get me wrong, I'm no casual and as a good liberal I'll unhesitatingly do whatever Yasmin Alibhai-Brown thinks is the right.  But it's all a bit  and  with a dash of



I do think it's very important not to lump these people in with the EDL types though.  The EDL are just racists disguised as secularists.  These people are the ones most affected by Shariah law and have every right to call for change without being called racists or pandering to racism, which is just pathetic, one might as well say that Jewish people who criticise Israel were pandering to anti Semitism


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 11, 2009)

It can, however, make sure it comes nowhere near being institutionalised or formally promoted. I think that you've a particularly shallow reading of the groups approach as well jonti.


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 11, 2009)

newbie said:


> funny old world
> 
> when one lot oppose "Radical Islam, and Sharia Law. Not Muslims, but Radical Muslims." they get into fisticuffs with anti-fascist demonstrators but when another lot say something very nearly identical they need supporting.
> 
> don't get me wrong, I'm no casual and as a good liberal I'll unhesitatingly do whatever Yasmin Alibhai-Brown thinks is the right.  But it's all a bit  and  with a dash of


 this lot have had grief as well from some on the left .. can't think of refs for now ..  she is a activist with the Workers Communist Party of Iran which riles much of the orthodox trots ( BA could explain i think! ) 


also her blog here and some discussion of EDL in the comments which is interesting 

http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/2009/09/november-21-rally-and-art-competition.html


----------



## smokedout (Oct 11, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> this lot have had grief as well from some on the left .. can't think of refs for now ..  she is a activist with the Workers Communist Party of Iran which riles much of the orthodox trots ( BA could explain i think! )



she got shit (as did tatchill) , rightly imo, for promoting and speaking at an event organised by the freedom association


----------



## Jonti (Oct 11, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> It can, however, make sure it comes nowhere near being institutionalised or formally promoted.


If people are going to be turning to religious leaders for arbitration, I would argue that it would be smart to make sure that this is institutionalised, the better to regulate the process, and protect parties to disputes.

All implementations of "sharia" are not the same, but yeah, a "shallow reading" of this campaign could easily mislead folks to think otherwise.


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 11, 2009)

I can't help wanting to support people's right to choose the rules by which they live. If, as this group claims, a lot of those who end up in Sharia courts in the UK haven't been able to make a meaningful choice, shouldn't they be addressing the poverty and isolation that creates that situation? Perhaps in the meantime there needs to be a suspension of Sharia law in order to prevent a spiral of disempowerment, but ultimately it's not ideal to be saying that this particular set of rules cannot be chosen. Shouldn't we all be able to choose the system (or not) of justice by which we live?

Not really sure what to make of anarchists supporting an organisation called One Law For All. Strange times.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 11, 2009)

> For many people Sharia courts are seen as brutal institutions where zealots in hardline Muslim states pass down draconian punishments.
> 
> But there are already Sharia courts operating throughout Britain in ways that have very little to do with the stereotype...
> 
> ...



Source


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 11, 2009)

And? that got no legal backing. That's the issue here. This socialism in 2009?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 11, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> And? that got no legal backing. That's the issue here. This socialism in 2009?



Well formal recognition and regulation could potentially have a number of positive benefits. It would mean, for example, that the rulings would have to be in compliance with anti-discrimination and human rights legislation and that they would be subject to challange in the regular courts.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 11, 2009)

Right, the same way this legislation is eradicating the BNP.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 11, 2009)

Not exactly sure of the point you're making there.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 11, 2009)

That formal recognition and regulation hasn't /won't change the nagture of the BNP. Why would it for anything else?


----------



## smokedout (Oct 11, 2009)

unless they are calling for an end top all religious tribunals (which they are technically, although there's nothing about the beth din or the disestablishment of the church on their website) then however well intentioned this might be it will always look to some as more muslim bashing


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 11, 2009)

So what. As you said, it will always look like that to them.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 11, 2009)

You total cowards


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 11, 2009)

Can't support it. With brainaddict on this.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 11, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> You total cowards



You intolerant, culturally moribund *beep*


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 11, 2009)

There was one of these a while ago wasn't there? How did that go?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 11, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> You intolerant, culturally moribund *beep*



Vibrat for em


----------



## Jonti (Oct 11, 2009)

smokedout;9809507]unless they are calling for an end top all religious tribunals (which they are technically said:


> So what. As you said, it will always look like that to them.


Especially when Islam is singled out


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 11, 2009)

2009


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 11, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Especially when Islam is singled out



Read again big brain


----------



## IMR (Oct 11, 2009)

Looks pretty good to me. What's with all this walking-on-eggshells stuff?

If people were campaigning against American religious bigots, like those 'God Hates Fags' numpties from Alabama or wherever, no one would be arguing 'Oh we mustn't do that, it might be misunderstood'.

Yes, if the line-up was Derek Turner, Mark Steyn and Melanie Phillips with comedy from Jim Davidson then it might reasonably be seen as an exercise in Muslim-bashing. But that obviously is not the case.


----------



## agricola (Oct 11, 2009)

One wonders how the EDL will be treated if they turn up to support this...


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 11, 2009)

agricola said:


> One wonders how the EDL will be treated if they turn up to support this...



Probably better than they did in Manchester .


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 11, 2009)

Jeremy Zeid protesting in Harrow AGAINST the EDL and defending moderate Sharia panels.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 11, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> You total cowards



nah, they're the cowards - a strong statement against all religious oppression and religious tribunals would have been brave

this looks like opportunitism on the part of the (leninist as far as i can tell) iranian workers communist party (IWCP - i aint typing that again), who seem to make up half the speakers with a handful of the usual suspects and a couple of nulab apologists bandwaggoning


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 11, 2009)

agricola said:


> One wonders how the EDL will be treated if they turn up to support this...



Not very well, I would hope.  As I said, the likes of Alibhai Brown or whoever really don't deserve to be lumped in with the EDL and so on


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 11, 2009)

Seriously though, I reckon you've got to be a fucking fucking total retarded fucktard if you think people like YAB are BNP Apologist anti muslim racists.

Sometimes I think people on here are so obsessed with being anti establishment that they lose all reason


----------



## smokedout (Oct 11, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Seriously though, I reckon you've got to be a fucking fucking total retarded fucktard if you think people like YAB are BNP Apologist anti muslim racists.



and who said any such thing?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 11, 2009)

smokedout said:


> unless they are calling for an end top all religious tribunals (which they are technically, although there's nothing about the beth din or the disestablishment of the church on their website) then however well intentioned this might be it will always look to some as more muslim bashing



It's safe to infer that Beth Din are also in the firing line. 
Listen to conservative councillior Jeremy Zeid's statement above.


----------



## october_lost (Oct 11, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Sometimes I think people on here are so obsessed with being anti establishment that they lose all reason



Hit the nail on the head. If you support secularism as a good thing you will see idiots arguing your linning up against the oppressed (see jonti's post), which is bollocks. The left once had the balls to not patronise people because they belong to a set ethnic/religious group and treat them all with kids gloves. Do you seriously think arse kissing imams and mullahs is going to break ordinary muslims from the religious authories who provide them with bogus leadership? Respect, GG and STWC have put a political alternative back in this country years by continual pushing communal politics. Political islam as a vehicle for political change as to be challenged, on a class basis, otherwise it is reactionary.


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 12, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Seriously though, I reckon you've got to be a fucking fucking total retarded fucktard if you think people like YAB are BNP Apologist anti muslim racists.


I don't think they're racist. I think they'd rather be right, and propagate their notion of right, rather than think democratically. 

I'd much rather have multiple systems of justice under the state umbrella than a single system of justice which I have to buy into whether I want to or not.

And if you're going to have multiple systems of justice, then some of them are ones you're going to disagree with. Bite the fucking bullet. And if you want to fight a particular justice system that people want to sign up to, don't use the state to do that. I don't feel like I'm the one being a coward


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 12, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Seriously though, I reckon you've got to be a fucking fucking total retarded fucktard if you think people like YAB are BNP Apologist anti muslim racists.
> 
> Sometimes I think people on here are so obsessed with being anti establishment that they lose all reason



yeah, that really sums up all the issues, "they must be racists"


----------



## derf (Oct 12, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> The rally aims to raise still further our opposition to Sharia and religious-based laws in Britain and the world, including the imposition of Sharia this year in Somalia and Pakistan's Swat region and of the ‘rape laws’ in Afghanistan. It also aims to show our solidarity with people standing up to political Islam everywhere, including in Iran, and our support for universal rights and secularism. The rally will also defend the right to asylum for those who have fled Sharia and calls for an end to racism and cultural relativism.



Why are religious based courts so bad? Many are simply used to guide through a problem, often with better results than a normal court and with the consent of all involved.
Sharia banking is almost untouched by the banking scandal as it does not allow the sort of extreme greed that was rife in the US banking system.

Now, when it comes to stoning to death, I'll agree it's bad news but don't lump it all together. Why do I see BNP support for this one?


----------



## Fictionist (Oct 12, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Read again big brain



Big? Big?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 12, 2009)

smokedout said:


> and who said any such thing?



Citigirl just for starters, called YAB a racist apologist and supporter of the British establishment..  Yet I can't imagine she'd be at all welcome at a BNP convention


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 12, 2009)

Brainaddict said:


> I'd much rather have multiple systems of justice under the state umbrella than a single system of justice which I have to buy into whether I want to or not.
> 
> And if you're going to have multiple systems of justice, then some of them are ones you're going to disagree with. Bite the fucking bullet. And if you want to fight a particular justice system that people want to sign up to, don't use the state to do that. I don't feel like I'm the one being a coward



I didn't say anyone was being a coward though.  I just feel that people aren't really thinking this through properly


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 12, 2009)

derf said:


> Why are religious based courts so bad? Many are simply used to guide through a problem, often with better results than a normal court and with the consent of all involved.
> Sharia banking is almost untouched by the banking scandal as it does not allow the sort of extreme greed that was rife in the US banking system.
> 
> Now, when it comes to stoning to death, I'll agree it's bad news but don't lump it all together. Why do I see BNP support for this one?



The BNP won't be supporting this though.  They'll be supporting the EFL wankers, but that's another matter.


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 12, 2009)

derf said:


> Why are religious based courts so bad? Many are simply used to guide through a problem, often with better results than a normal court and with the consent of all involved.
> Sharia banking is almost untouched by the banking scandal as it does not allow the sort of extreme greed that was rife in the US banking system.
> 
> Now, when it comes to stoning to death, I'll agree it's bad news but don't lump it all together. Why do I see BNP support for this one?


You tell 'em derf, what reasonable person could object to a legal system were female witnesses are treated as less reliable than male ones?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 12, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> You tell 'em derf, what reasonable person could object to a legal system were female witnesses are treated as less reliable than male ones?



Rape cases are not tried in British Sharia or Beth Din courts, they are tried in the mainstream civil legal system. Crimes against the person, as in Domestic Violence etc, wouldn't be heard in religious courts. In cases where there is a violent husband and wife seeking divorce, then comments from others (witnesses) whether male or female are treated equally.  

Your comment is therefore inapplicable. 

You've sensationally skewed the way religious courts work in UK. These religious community courts only conduct arbitration on family/community matters. If people are unhappy with decisions, they can take their case through the mainstream civil court (at a price, of course!).


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 12, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> These religious community courts only conduct arbitration on family/community matters.


And applying a legal system that is patriarchical to the core to family and community matters doesn't strike you as a wee bit problematic?


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 12, 2009)

Brainaddict said:


> I don't think they're racist. I think they'd rather be right, and propagate their notion of right, rather than think democratically.
> 
> I'd much rather have multiple systems of justice under the state umbrella than a single system of justice which I have to buy into whether I want to or not.
> 
> And if you're going to have multiple systems of justice, then some of them are ones you're going to disagree with. Bite the fucking bullet. And if you want to fight a particular justice system that people want to sign up to, don't use the state to do that. I don't feel like I'm the one being a coward


If you're going to accept the notion of justice, then things are either just or they are injust.  Multiple, mutually contradictory systems of justice cannot exist alongside each other without perpetuating injustice from one point of view or another and the simple fact of the matter is that not all points of view are equally valid.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 12, 2009)

When did you become a fan of the mainstream legal system, InBloom?
What do you think will be gained by banning all arbitration tribunals?

Are you for banning First Nation and other non-western-law based tribunals as well as Jewish and Muslim tribunals too?


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 12, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> When did you become a fan of the mainstream legal system, InBloom?


There's a difference between pointing out the incoherency of arguments in favour of Sharia courts and being "a fan of the mainstream legal system".

Of course, I apologise if I was wrong in assuming that you possessed the requisite intelligence to be able to make that distinction without it being pointed out to you.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 12, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> If you're going to accept the notion of justice, then things are either just or they are injust.  Multiple, mutually contradictory systems of justice cannot exist alongside each other without perpetuating injustice from one point of view or another and the simple fact of the matter is that not all points of view are equally valid.



They're not contradictory systems of justice though, are they? They work within the law of the land, not outside of it.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 12, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> There's a difference between pointing out the incoherency of arguments in favour of Sharia courts and being "a fan of the mainstream legal system".
> 
> Of course, I apologise if I was wrong in assuming that you possessed the requisite intelligence to be able to make that distinction without it being pointed out to you.



Make this same argument using Beth Din in UK and North America as your first example. 
Then make this same argument using First Nation tribunals in North America as your second example.


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 12, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> They're not contradictory systems of justice though, are they? They work within the law of the land, not outside of it.


So Sharia law is identical to UK secular civil law then?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 12, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> There's a difference between pointing out the incoherency of arguments in favour of Sharia courts and being "a fan of the mainstream legal system".
> 
> Of course, I apologise if I was wrong in assuming that you possessed the requisite intelligence to be able to make that distinction without it being pointed out to you.



You want to ban Beth Din and Sharia courts, In Bloom. No doubt you want to ban Halal/Kashrut too (adminstered through that same religious legal system). 

How long have you been pretending you're not antisemitic? Pretend no more, and admit the truth - you can only see 'the western way' as 'the way'. There are other 'ways' to deal with disputes and legally we have a right to these other 'ways'.


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 12, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Make this same argument using Beth Din in UK and North America as your first example.
> Then make this same argument using First Nation tribunals in North America as your second example.


Since the argument would be essentially the same for the former and I don't actually know what the latter is, I don't feel the need to.

I'm by no means of the opinion that the state can or should prevent religious authorities from arbitrating in disputes between believers, as long as religion exists, it's pretty much innevitable.  I'm more bothered by people defending religious courts and communitarian politics.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 12, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> So Sharia law is identical to UK secular civil law then?



Still waiting for you to include Beth Din in your focus - it's not appropriate for you to continue the pretence that your campaign can leave Beth Din untouched.


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 12, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> You want to ban Beth Din and Sharia courts, In Bloom. No doubt you want to ban Halal/Kashrut too (adminstered through that same religious legal system).
> 
> How long have you been pretending you're not antisemitic? Pretend no more, and admit the truth - you can only see 'the western way' as 'the way'. There are other 'ways' to deal with disputes and legally we have a right to these other 'ways'.


Oh fuck off.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 12, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> Oh fuck off.



No, you fuck off and do some proper research. 
You cannot see the consequences of your popularist campaign clearly.


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 12, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> No, you fuck off and do some proper research.
> You cannot see the consequences of your popularist campaign clearly.


_My_ campaign?  What campaign is that then?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 12, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> _My_ campaign?  What campaign is that then?



Go and do some proper research and think very carefully about the consequences, Mr. Popularist Bandwagon.


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 12, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Go and do some proper research and think very carefully about the consequences, Mr. Popularist Bandwagon.


If you're not going to make the tiny amount of effort it takes to read what I'm writing, I don't really think you're in a position to lecture me about researching things.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 12, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> If you're not going to make the tiny amount of effort it takes to read what I'm writing, I don't really think you're in a position to lecture me about researching things.



Avoidance tactic. 

Go and do some proper research, Mr. Popularist Bandwagon, and think very carefully about the consequences.


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 12, 2009)

Feckit.


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 12, 2009)

me said:
			
		

> *I'm by no means of the opinion that the state can or should prevent religious authorities from arbitrating in disputes between believers*, as long as religion exists, it's pretty much innevitable. I'm more bothered by people defending religious courts and communitarian politics.


^repeated for the hard of thinking^


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 12, 2009)

I'm asking you to think about the consequences. Mr. Authoritarian Libertarian.


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 12, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> I'm asking you to think about the consequences. Mr. Authoritarian Libertarian.


The consequences of what?  Of being consistant in my criticism of organised religion?  Of not patting reactionary religious figures on the head like some patronising Victorian philanthropist just because they're non-white?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 12, 2009)

i do hope that IP treats the vatican with the same uncritical respecct that he does islam...


----------



## Jonti (Oct 12, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> So Sharia law is identical to UK secular civil law then?




As I understand it, the results of approved voluntary arbitration are enforceable at law, provided that the ruling is not itself illegal or unconstitutional.

Nothing to see here. If people want to form voluntary associations with enfoceable 'rules' and penalties, that's fine.

Religion is a pile of poop, but the best opposition to it, I think, is to tolerate it to death.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 12, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> ^repeated for the hard of thinking^



I got that. You're bothered about people defending religious communities whilst you're busy attacking them! Lolz. 

I'm seeing radical muslim feminists try to reform 50s male dominated life from within. There's nothing to stop muslim women becoming specialists in Islamic religious law. I believe their prophet's wife, Aisha was one such woman. There's no religious edict preventing womens' participation in mosque life (communal worship), no religious edict preventing women's religious scholarship, no religious edict preventing women's legal expertise, no religious edict preventing women's participation in political life. British Muslim women are actively trying to eradicate that old-fashioned 50s-style male dominance - a male dominance that is not Islamic, but culturally influenced. Only an idiot would look down on religiously-minded feminists and try to make out they're not part of the wider feminist movement to improve rights for women, and give them no support whatsoever to stand with men as political, social, sexual and spiritual equals.


----------



## Spion (Oct 12, 2009)

Jonti said:


> As I understand it, the results of approved voluntary arbitration are enforceable at law, provided that the ruling is not itself illegal or unconstitutional.
> 
> Nothing to see here. If people want to form voluntary associations with enfoceable 'rules' and penalties, that's fine.
> 
> Religion is a pile of poop, but the best opposition to it, I think, is to tolerate it to death.


Spot on. Except I'd add, tolerate it to death while attempting to show better ways of organising social life


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 12, 2009)

*This is what a radical muslim feminist looks like*


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 12, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> I got that. You're bothered about people defending religious communities whilst you're busy attacking them! Lolz.


And that's what "religious courts and communitarian politics" means, is it?  Dimwit.

You can appeal to scripture all you like (though it's a little odd for a non-Muslim to do so), but the reality of Islam as it actually exists and is experienced by the vast majority of Muslims is that it's as much a partriarchical institution as the other main religions in this country.


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 12, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


>


I never knew it was possible to fit that much stupidity and wrongness into one photo without Jim Davidson being in shot, but there it is.  Astonishing stuff.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 12, 2009)




----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 12, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> I never knew it was possible to fit that much stupidity and wrongness into one photo without Jim Davidson being in shot, but there it is.  Astonishing stuff.



_______


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 12, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> _______





> Invalid Attachment specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator


Compelling stuff.

Anyway, I'm well aware that some people believe that it's possible to reconcile both Abrahamic religion and feminism without making major compromises on both.  It just happens to be the case that they're both wrong and stupid.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 12, 2009)

It's hard to imagine how an ideology which gives men freedom to marry who they want but not women can be reconcilable with religion, I agree.  I wonder how these shariah courts in the UK would treat women who married non muslim men.


----------



## Spion (Oct 12, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> I wonder how these shariah courts in the UK would treat women who married non muslim men.


This sentence shows you haven't understood the basics of this issue. These courts are only given authority by parties to an issue assenting to submit to their arbitration.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 12, 2009)

trouble is sharia does not treat men and wome equally major fail under umnan rights law innit


----------



## spawnofsatan (Oct 12, 2009)

Spion said:


> This sentence shows you haven't understood the basics of this issue. These courts are only given authority by parties to an issue assenting to submit to their arbitration.




Community pressure may have a part to play in that though.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 12, 2009)

Do women and men have equality in Britain yet? Is equality enshrined in civil law? No. 
Do employers treat men and women equally yet? No. Women are still being sacked for becoming pregnant. Men are never sacked for becoming fathers.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 12, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Do women and men have equality in Britain yet? Is equality enshrined in civil law? No.
> Do employers treat men and women equally yet? No. Women are still being sacked for becoming pregnant. Men are never sacked for becoming fathers.



but that isnt an argument for formalising another (even more) patriarchal legal system

however whilst i oppose any religion within the legal system its difficult to make a case that only sharia should be singled out when we the beth din is accepted and the mainstream legal system is steeped in christianity


----------



## likesfish (Oct 12, 2009)

smokedout said:


> but that isnt an argument for formalising another (even more) patriarchal legal system
> 
> however whilst i oppose any religion within the legal system its difficult to make a case that only sharia should be singled out when we the beth din is accepted and the mainstream legal system is steeped in christianity



we have been a christian country for over a thousand years. so tradition and history  and culture is christian. We are not an islamic country and have no hisotry of islamic influence. Church courts only deal with church matters these days. 
Sharia is grossly unfair towards women as is beth din. Beth din has been part of UK life since the 1600s so 400 years of history.
 Sharia is not part of UK culture tough.


----------



## Nigel (Oct 12, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Jeremy Zeid protesting in Harrow AGAINST the EDL and defending moderate Sharia panels.



At least smomeones got some sense!


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 12, 2009)

likesfish said:


> we have been a christian country for over a thousand years. so tradition and history  and culture is christian. We are not an islamic country and have no hisotry of islamic influence. Church courts only deal with church matters these days.
> Sharia is grossly unfair towards women as is beth din. Beth din has been part of UK life since the 1600s so 400 years of history.
> Sharia is not part of UK culture tough.


That's a pretty shit argument though.  Indian takeaways are a pretty recent thing in the UK too, should they have been banned in order to protect British restaurants?


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 12, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> Do women and men have equality in Britain yet? Is equality enshrined in civil law? No.
> Do employers treat men and women equally yet? No. Women are still being sacked for becoming pregnant. Men are never sacked for becoming fathers.


So?  UK law being shit is no defence of Sharia, anymore than the opposite case is true.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 12, 2009)

likesfish said:


> we have been a christian country for over a thousand years. so tradition and history  and culture is christian. We are not an islamic country and have no hisotry of islamic influence. Church courts only deal with church matters these days.
> Sharia is grossly unfair towards women as is beth din. Beth din has been part of UK life since the 1600s so 400 years of history.
> Sharia is not part of UK culture tough.



here, here, on with the crusade


----------



## starfish2000 (Oct 12, 2009)

Jonti said:


> This is in danger of mixing issues and stoking hone-grown racism.
> 
> Certainly, there's a lot wrong with Sharia, and with Beth Din, and with "ecclesistical" courts in general.  We don't need bearded weirdos making laws and running gaols, like we used to have.
> 
> ...



So your saying its ok for Roman Catholic priests to order abortions if the woman concerned is a practising Catholic then?

Im sorry but as far as Im concerned I live in a secular state along with my muslim , christian and aetheist brothers and sisters.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 12, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> That's a pretty shit argument though.  Indian takeaways are a pretty recent thing in the UK too, should they have been banned in order to protect British restaurants?



no but sort of explains why we have christian mumbo jumbo and beth din allowed. See no real reason to add another old fashioned illogical law system.
 want a muslim legal system move to an islamic state.
 Don't stay in the 21st centuary


----------



## Spion (Oct 12, 2009)

likesfish said:


> no but sort of explains why we have christian mumbo jumbo and beth din allowed. See no real reason to add another old fashioned illogical law system.
> want a muslim legal system move to an islamic state.
> Don't stay in the 21st centuary


We have a separation of church and state and religious tolerance. If you want intolerance I suggest *you *move somewhere else


----------



## likesfish (Oct 12, 2009)

Do we Actually have a seperation between church and state ? what with head of church being head of state and bishops in the house of  lords? funny version of seperation maybe your thinking of our rebillious colonies
 religious tolerance is one thin adovocating a foreign religons gets to set up a parallel law system that breaks huma rights laws IMHO is a step to far.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 12, 2009)

likesfish said:


> religious tolerance is one thin adovocating a foreign religons gets to set up a parallel law system that breaks huma rights laws IMHO is a step to far.



it doesnt/wouldnt break human rights laws - thats kinda the point


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 12, 2009)

likesfish said:


> we have been a christian country for over a thousand years. so tradition and history  and culture is christian. We are not an islamic country and have no hisotry of islamic influence. Church courts only deal with church matters these days.
> Sharia is grossly unfair towards women as is beth din. Beth din has been part of UK life since the 1600s so 400 years of history.
> Sharia is not part of UK culture tough.



Now this is Hotspur.

Women have only gained equality in Britain quite recently.

christianity used to be grossly sexist towards women in this country.

My issue is whether we should be championing turning back the clock.

Christianity is no matter than Islam, to be quite honest


----------



## Spion (Oct 12, 2009)

likesfish said:


> Do we Actually have a seperation between church and state ? what with head of church being head of state and bishops in the house of  lords? funny version of seperation maybe your thinking of our rebillious colonies.


Representatives of religion may sit on the bodies of government now but it's a far cry from the rule of the church pre-1642, where church courts and the Archbishops of York/Canterbury were the right hand men of the king who ruled directly over people, literally telling them what to do and when to do it




likesfish said:


> religious tolerance is one thin adovocating a foreign religons gets to set up a parallel law system that breaks huma rights laws IMHO is a step to far.


Your use of the word 'foreign' just shows what a bigot you are. Your imagining that these courts can do anything other than arbitrate is just ignorance or fantasy. You really are one of the dimmest posters on here


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 12, 2009)

agricola said:


> One wonders how the EDL will be treated if they turn up to support this...


 read the link i put it   it states their attitude to  EDL


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 12, 2009)

october_lost said:


> Hit the nail on the head. If you support secularism as a good thing you will see idiots arguing your linning up against the oppressed (see jonti's post), which is bollocks. The left once had the balls to not patronise people because they belong to a set ethnic/religious group and treat them all with kids gloves. Do you seriously think arse kissing imams and mullahs is going to break ordinary muslims from the religious authories who provide them with bogus leadership? Respect, GG and STWC have put a political alternative back in this country years by continual pushing communal politics. Political islam as a vehicle for political change as to be challenged, on a class basis, otherwise it is reactionary.


 yes


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 12, 2009)

Spion said:


> Spot on. Except I'd add, tolerate it to death while attempting to show better ways of organising social life


 which is fine but this group is based in the muslim world and predominantly amongst mulsim women .. surely they have a right to oppose Sharia?


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 12, 2009)

Spion said:


> This sentence shows you haven't understood the basics of this issue. These courts are only given authority by parties to an issue assenting to submit to their arbitration.


 .. come on mate!! lol .. if the women object what happens??


----------



## Spion (Oct 12, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> .. come on mate!! lol .. if the women object what happens??


then, as afar as the UK is concerned, AFAIK the case falls apart. What's being proposed in the Uk is voluntary, as is the case with jewsih courts. if you know different then post the evidence


----------



## Spion (Oct 12, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> which is fine but this group is based in the muslim world and predominantly amongst mulsim women .. surely they have a right to oppose Sharia?


I oppose sharia. The question is how you oppose it.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 12, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> .. come on mate!! lol .. if the women object what happens??



What happens if the women object to a verdict reached at the sharia court they themselves voluntarily submitted their civil case to?


----------



## likesfish (Oct 12, 2009)

http://www.islamic-sharia.org/

arbitration that is automaticly biaised against women and zero tolerance for gays and lesbians 
 The UK goverment should support that because they belive in a god and are brown skinned 

its loonspud stuff


----------



## Spion (Oct 12, 2009)

likesfish said:


> arbitration that is automaticly biaised against women and zero tolerance for gays and lesbians


it's voluntary, you dickhead. You have to agree to be subject to its arbitration, and I don't suppose we'll see any cases ruling on gayness


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 12, 2009)

Durruti and Douglas Murray, 
sitting in a tree ...


----------



## likesfish (Oct 12, 2009)

Spion said:


> it's voluntary, you dickhead. You have to agree to be subject to its arbitration, and I don't suppose we'll see any cases ruling on gayness



oh really

 From the community that brought honour killings and forced marrige back to the UK Excuse me If I don't leap up and down with Joy of the idea of women "voluntarly" agreeing to be treated less fairly
 Nobody would suggest that not agreeing to sharia sorting something out might find themselves I dunno killed and dumped in a suitcase.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tims-lover-tells-affair-shamed-community.html


----------



## Jonti (Oct 12, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> What happens if the women object to a verdict reached at the sharia court they themselves voluntarily submitted their civil case to?


As far as I understand things, if you voluntarily submit a dispute to binding arbitration, guess what?  It's binding.

So the decision of that arbitration could be reviewed by a court, to see if the arbitration committee/tribunal followed its own rules, but if it's behaved properly by its own lights, then that's that.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 12, 2009)

starfish2000 said:


> So your saying its ok for Roman Catholic priests to order abortions if the woman concerned is a practising Catholic then?


No, but I'll have some of what you're smoking, please.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 12, 2009)

I generally think the UK should not allow a legal system that treats people who don't have cocks as 2nd class its not fair.

especailly as the community has a tiny minority of fuckwits who think its ok to kill people without cocks if they don't do as they are told


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 12, 2009)

Spion said:


> I oppose sharia. The question is how you oppose it.


 well i am sure we agree that the EDL is the wrong way, but 1L4A seems about right .. based essentially amongst progressive muslim women .. what else would you want?


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 12, 2009)

Spion said:


> then, as afar as the UK is concerned, AFAIK the case falls apart. What's being proposed in the Uk is voluntary, as is the case with jewsih courts. if you know different then post the evidence



http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/call...urts-after-report-shows-widespread-injustice/


----------



## Jonti (Oct 12, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> well i am sure we agree that the EDL is the wrong way, but 1L4A seems about right .. based essentially amongst progressive muslim women .. what else would you want?


I thought that was obvious.

People want the right to chose their own type and style of arbitration, for a range of family and civil disputes.  

That may suck; but the alternative, I suggest, sucks even more greatly.


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 12, 2009)

Jonti said:


> I thought that was obvious.
> 
> People want the right to chose their own type and style of arbitration, for a range of family and civil disputes.
> 
> That may suck; but the alternative, I suggest, sucks even more greatly.


 and do you deny the right of muslim women to campaign against? as you appear to be doing?


----------



## Spion (Oct 12, 2009)

likesfish said:


> oh really
> 
> From the community that brought honour killings and forced marrige back to the UK


Yeah, cos that's what this is about.  Fucking thick bigoted dickhead


----------



## Jonti (Oct 12, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> and do you deny the right of muslim women to campaign against? as you appear to be doing?


WfT?  

Of course not, you bloody fool.

Your prejudice is showing.  Unless you can show readers where in this thread I've said such a thing.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 12, 2009)

Spion said:


> Yeah, cos that's what this is about.  Fucking thick bigoted dickhead



excuse me a tiny minority of fuckheads who claim to be muslims still practice honour killings and forced marriage. Given that I suggest giving them any sort respectability is a mistake.  The idea that the sort of fucked up family who think forced marrige is ok would allow any choice in the matter of arbitration is a bit rich.
 You can hardly get justice from an outift which automaticly classes you as 2nd class if your a woman 	 http://www.islamic-sharia.org/
 They kindly explain because men can focus but womens minds can multitask


----------



## Spion (Oct 12, 2009)

likesfish said:


> excuse me a tiny minority of fuckheads who claim to be muslims still practice honour killings and forced marriage. Given that I suggest giving them any sort respectability is a mistake.


What has that got to do with voluntary sharia courts? Are you just thick or is this some attempt to smear muslims in general?


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 12, 2009)

Jonti said:


> WfT?
> 
> Of course not, you bloody fool.
> 
> Your prejudice is showing.  Unless you can show readers where in this thread I've said such a thing.



apologies sometimes we all miss what one person says and thinks they are sayings something else .. so you support 1L4A then?


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 12, 2009)

Spion said:


> What has that got to do with voluntary sharia courts? Are you just thick or is this some attempt to smear muslims in general?



spion i think he is saying that voluntary in some societies is nothing of the sort .. do you not think there is serious doubt, as indeed 1L4A say, that it is voluntary for all those who are involved, particularly women? like going to church or mosque is not a legal requirement for most christians but all of us know plenty of people who as kids had no choice but to go to church/chapel or mass


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 12, 2009)

is this thread about Sharia law in Iran or Sharia law in the British version of the arbitration courts?


----------



## Jonti (Oct 12, 2009)

durruti02 said:


> apologies sometimes we all miss what one person says and thinks they are sayings something else .. so you support 1L4A then?


Of course I support their right to campaign for what they think is right.  But I think targeting only sharia (and not the analagous CofE and Jewish institutions) is ... odd.

You see, unlike some of their supporters, I don't really see Islam as especially problematic.


----------



## Jonti (Oct 12, 2009)

CyberRose said:


> is this thread about Sharia law in Iran or Sharia law in the British version of the arbitration courts?


Well, quite.

The thread's really about the rally; is the rally about Sharia law in Saudi Arabia, or it about the British voluntary arbitration panels?

There is a mahoosive difference!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2009)

They're not only targetting Sharia - they're targetting all faith-based laws - they even run a helpline for advice on _all_ religious based tribunal decisions.


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 12, 2009)

Jonti said:


> Well, quite.
> 
> The thread's really about the rally; is the rally about Sharia law in Saudi Arabia, or it about the British voluntary arbitration panels?
> 
> There is a mahoosive difference!


Yes there is. I think it's safe to say the intentions of the rally is to protest against the application of Sharia law in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia, which, let's face it, is completely ass backwards and should be opposed (as should all application or desire for that _kind_ of Sharia law)

The "Sharia Courts" that made the headlines (in the Mail and Star) last year is pretty harmless. It's actually the same law that proved so useful in uncovering the lies and deceit of West Ham and went some way to restoring a little bit of justice. It's the Arbitration Act and no arbitration set up under its auspices can contradict British law, so no gay/woman stoning would be allowed. I also looked into it when there was so much furore when it first came about, and they're actually quite keen to keep an eye out for people they suspect might not be there so _voluntarily_ (which is probably in their benefit considering the attention forced marriages etc receive - and obviously rightly so). It's just simple things like whether or not people can get divorced - marriage is a contract and if that contract is made in a religious context then it is that context that decides whether or not the contract has been broken and iirc has worked in the favour of many women who want out of a marriage.

That said, as all religions, no matter how fundamental or moderate, are a crock of shite, I'd also have to state my bemusement that anyone would want to have aspects of their life decided by religious courts


----------



## smokedout (Oct 12, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> They're not only targetting Sharia - they're targetting all faith-based laws - they even run a helpline for advice on _all_ religious based tribunal decisions.





> SHOW YOUR OPPOSITION TO SHARIA LAW AND ALL RELIGIOUS-BASED TRIBUNALS IN BRITAIN, IRAN, IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, PAKISTAN, SOMALIA AND ELSEWHERE



come on, they're paying lip service but thats about it


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 12, 2009)

CyberRose said:


> It's actually the same law that proved so useful in uncovering the lies and deceit of West Ham and went some way to restoring a little bit of justice.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2009)

smokedout said:


> come on, they're paying lip service but thats about it



What makes you say that? Do you think they're lying when they say that they oppose all faith-based laws and feature that position prominently in their public materials? Do you think that they should not make use of the current debates and public controvertsies about Sharia law and Islam to put forward their positions? Or ignore their own personal historical experiences? I think they're quite right to try and use those debates and their experiences to put forward their politics - it'd be a terribly run campaign that chose not to, one based more on cowardice than atual commitment.


----------



## IMR (Oct 12, 2009)

smokedout said:


> come on, they're paying lip service but thats about it



Guess if a lot of those speakers come from Iran, then they might have some unhappy memories about the application of Sharia law there after the Iranian revolution.

I used to print a mag for Tudeh Party exiles in Britain. Theirs seemed a forlorn cause. One chap they used to bring along with them was very frail-looking. If you moved suddenly anywhere near him, he would shrink back. He'd been tortured by Islamist goons.

This was all back in the mid-1980s. At one point the exiles had a serious split. The Iranian government had offered them an amnesty. Some were homesick and wanted to go back. Others suspected a trap. It ended with a 'we can't stop you' compromise.

The ones who went back were shot _immediately_ on getting off the plane. The Tudeh Party heard a rumour that the plan had been to lead them to some outbuilding, and then shoot them. But the hotheads despatched to do the deed had been so eager they couldn't wait for that.

Years later, through work, I met a religious delegation from Iran. There were a couple of old cunts, Khomeini-lookalikes with the beards, and some young acolytes/bodyguards. The latter had an anxious, slightly hyped-up demeanour. The older ones were humourless and stony-faced and projected an air of incurious arrogance.

It felt like meeting someone from centuries ago, like John Knox or Martin Luther and their followers.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 12, 2009)

who'd be happy whose notionaly C of E (basically default postion in the UK) to have the church court settle anything ?

rather than being voluntrary voluntary it would be more like Voluntary Church parade in the army i.e you will go to church parade and sing loundly or the RSM will be unhappy with you which belive me you don't want
 so muslim women will be "persuaded" to use a form of abitration that treats them as 2nd class from the off.
  The Justic system is far from perfect but at least it starts with the basic premise that everybody is equal not that a poession of a a pair of balls means your testomy is worth of two women


----------



## CyberRose (Oct 12, 2009)

likesfish said:


> who'd be happy whose notionaly C of E (basically default postion in the UK) to have the church court settle anything ?
> 
> rather than being voluntrary voluntary it would be more like Voluntary Church parade in the army i.e you will go to church parade and sing loundly or the RSM will be unhappy with you which belive me you don't want
> so muslim women will be "persuaded" to use a form of abitration that treats them as 2nd class from the off.
> The Justic system is far from perfect but at least it starts with the basic premise that everybody is equal not that a poession of a a pair of balls means your testomy is worth of two women


You're reading too much into the British "Sharia courts". They _don't_ supersede British law, nor can they contradict British law. I personally wouldn't be happy for a religious court to decide anything about my life, but that's because I'm not a nutter. However, some religious nutters (that's anyone who's religious btw) are more than happy to allow religious rulings to affect their lives, after all, anyone who gets married in a church by a vicar under the eyes of God has already agreed to a religious contract to the person they are marrying. 

The "Sharia courts" are merely arbitration panels whereby each party to the contract (whatever that may be) agrees to the panels findings. It is EXACTLY the same as West Ham and Sheff Utd agreeing to the findings of the panel that decided whether or not West Ham owed Sheff Utd compo. Both the sports and the Islamic panels operate under the same law - the Arbitration Act - and the principle is exactly the same. I know from earlier research that this Islamic court (don't even think they _are_ a Sharia court are they?) is quite keen to shy away from any cases where it appears that a woman is being abused or is there against her wishes (bad PR, plus it would be illegal), how this works in practice I'm not sure tho.

The court (arbitration panel) in the UK is a million miles away from what is practised in backwards countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia (and before any moral relative tossers start mouthing off, any country that applies religious law like these two countries IS backwards)


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 13, 2009)

BUT you only have to look at the culture of a lot of Islamic communities in the UK - forced marriages, honour killings, etc - to see that they are hardly going into this from a position of equality.  That's the only reason I'm not comfortable with it.  I mean the Jewish communities in the Uk are already very westernised, they've earned their right to have their own courts


----------



## Spion (Oct 13, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> BUT you only have to look at the culture of a lot of Islamic communities in the UK - forced marriages, honour killings, etc - to see that they are hardly going into this from a position of equality.  That's the only reason I'm not comfortable with it.  I mean the Jewish communities in the Uk are already very westernised, they've earned their right to have their own courts


It's just like we're back in colonial times, looking after the children, deciding for them whether they're mature enough to act for themselves.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 13, 2009)

Yes, it's just like that, isn't it....


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 13, 2009)

Don't you think tolerance is a two way process though?  I mean how tolerant are the muslim communities of 'their' women marrying out, for instance?

Whereas this simply isn't an issue in the jewish communities.


----------



## Spion (Oct 13, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Don't you think tolerance is a two way process though?  I mean how tolerant are the muslim communities of 'their' women marrying out, for instance?
> 
> Whereas this simply isn't an issue in the jewish communities.


If I was trying to set up some kind of society where people were treated as monolithic groups, with rights and reponsibilities that I or my group decided on, then you'd be right. But I abhor such a vision of society, with its echoes of Nazi Germany and apartheid SA. And I suspect it's based on a quite ignorant view of 'this is what all muslims are like, and this is what jews are like'.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 13, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Don't you think tolerance is a two way process though?  I mean how tolerant are the muslim communities of 'their' women marrying out, for instance?
> 
> Whereas this simply isn't an issue in the jewish communities.



You have got to be kidding. Try being Jewish and marrying out when your parents come from Stamford Hill ... or Israel for that matter! You obviously don't know about the anti-assimilation programmes!


----------



## likesfish (Oct 13, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> You have got to be kidding. Try being Jewish and marrying out when your parents come from Stamford Hill!



can't really recall any jewish honour killings lately unfortunatly that's not the case in the muslim community.
 I'm sure the sharia people are nice none homicdal types. suprisingly I know a few muslims and once worked with an iman for a bit perectly good people.
 Political islam is just wrong having a system of law that treats women automaticly as 2nd class citizens is wrong


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 13, 2009)

likesfish said:


> can't really recall any jewish honour killings lately unfortunatly that's not the case in the muslim community.
> I'm sure the sharia people are nice none homicdal types. suprisingly I know a few muslims and once worked with an iman for a bit perectly good people.
> Political islam is just wrong having a system of law that treats women automaticly as 2nd class citizens is wrong



I can't believe you're going on about honour killings as thought they were Islamic. Islam is against honour killings. No parent has the right to take the life of their child. No husband has the right to take the life of his wife. No brother has the right to take the life of his sister.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Whereas this simply isn't an issue in the jewish communities.



Yes it is.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2009)

As for women being treated as second class citizens, most honour killings in this country are committed by "tolerant" hindus and sikhs, not muslims. 

And as for the jewish community, there will be a major scandal in the orthodox community in the coming years regarding child abuse, mark my words. 

UDW I got your message and I don't think you're racist or anything like that, it's an easy impression to get


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2009)

The inability of women to remarry and get divorced from abusive husbands because of these decisions of these kangaroo courts is actually a massive fucking issue in Judaism. 

Either have both Muslim and Jewish courts or don't have them at all, I know hich option I prefer.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 13, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> I can't believe you're going on about honour killings as thought they were Islamic. Islam is against honour killings. No parent has the right to take the life of their child. No husband has the right to take the life of his wife. No brother has the right to take the life of his sister.



trouble is as with most belief systems what it says and what its belivers are prepared to do. look at ulster now my bible study was pretty crap but I'm fairly sure there was'nt a passage exhorting the faithful to kick a women to death beecause you suspect she's goes to a diffrent church did'nt stop them   Bit like sharia in other countrys the Koran lays out viscous punishments but then with a strict reading of the koran makes it difficult to apply  said punishment and suggests mercy and forgivness is a better route.
 Unfortunalty that bit tends to get left out
  As we all things its the dangerous idiots who may take comfort from an offical shaira court


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2009)

Sorry if I'm coming across as anti-semitic btw but there are some seriously fucked up things within some sections of the Jewish community and I don't think that it helps anyone to sweep them under the carpet. And I certainly don't think its helpful to pretend that it only applies to Muslims. 

One example that I read was the laws about niddah (purity) - there was an article in the Jewish chronicle about the problem of divorce within the community and an example of a stepmother who couldn't hug her stepson of about 11 years old or be in the same room as him alone, because of her stupid religious beliefs.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> Sorry if I'm coming across as anti-semitic btw but


everything before 'but' is bullshit


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 13, 2009)

invisibleplanet said:


> You have got to be kidding. Try being Jewish and marrying out when your parents come from Stamford Hill ... or Israel for that matter! You obviously don't know about the anti-assimilation programmes!



Still, it doesn't really compare does it?

Just among my circle of friends I know several jewish women with non jewish husbands...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 13, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> The inability of women to remarry and get divorced from abusive husbands because of these decisions of these kangaroo courts is actually a massive fucking issue in Judaism.
> 
> Either have both Muslim and Jewish courts or don't have them at all, I know hich option I prefer.



Yes, but it's a two way process.  With it ought to come the islamic communities facing up to the fact that they've got to 'westernise' like the Jewish communities have and stop being mired in tribalism.  Otherwise the comparison doesn't hold water, imo.  You might as well have white supremacist courts as well.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Still, it doesn't really compare does it?
> 
> Just among my circle of friends I know several jewish women with non jewish husbands...



That doesn't tell me anything apart from the fact that many Jewish people are only Jewish in a cultural sense, it's been that way for a long time. It's also because Judaism goes through the matrilineal line so in a way it doesn't "matter" as much because the children will still be Jewish. 

How many formerly Hasidic women do you know with non-Jewish husbands? I know people who've been practically cut out of many of their family members' lives simply for going to a different fucking synagogue.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Yes, but it's a two way process.  With it ought to come the islamic communities facing up to the fact that they've got to 'westernise' like the Jewish communities have and stop being mired in tribalism.  Otherwise the comparison doesn't hold water, imo.  You might as well have white supremacist courts as well.



But not all of the Jewish communities have (and certainly most of the people who will be using those courts will NOT be "westernised" in the way you're saying) as the people who have a modern conception of Judaism won't be using them in the first place, but will be getting divorced etc via a secular route. That's the whole point.


----------



## Spion (Oct 13, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Yes, but it's a two way process.  With it ought to come the islamic communities facing up to the fact that they've got to 'westernise' like the Jewish communities have and stop being mired in tribalism.


I can't believe how ignorant you are of muslims and jews, but then you are from the North East


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2009)

The whole point is that denominations like mine (reform) will NOT be saying to their congegations that they have to use these courts to get divorced. Other synagogues will


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> everything before 'but' is bullshit


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 13, 2009)

Spion said:


> I can't believe how ignorant you are of muslims and jews, but then you are from the North East



 I'm from Hackney


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 13, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> The whole point is that denominations like mine (reform) will NOT be saying to their congegations that they have to use these courts to get divorced. Other synagogues will



Jup. True. And a large proportion of Reform & Liberal lot do marry out. Often their partner converts (esp. in Reform where ime this is welcomed). However, this isn't the case in Orthodox or Haredim communities at all where marrying out is not favoured (Orthodox) or shunned (Haredim).


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 13, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> Sorry if I'm coming across as anti-semitic btw but there are some seriously fucked up things within some sections of the Jewish community and I don't think that it helps anyone to sweep them under the carpet. And I certainly don't think its helpful to pretend that it only applies to Muslims.
> 
> One example that I read was the laws about niddah (purity) - there was an article in the Jewish chronicle about the problem of divorce within the community and an example of a stepmother who couldn't hug her stepson of about 11 years old or be in the same room as him alone, because of her stupid religious beliefs.



No, it's well said, sister. Chained women (Agunah) are a shameful aspect of religious courts. - the refusal to grant a divorce affects both Jewish and Muslim women.  
http://www.agunot-campaign.org.uk/Gloria_Proops.htm

The difference between Muslim and Jewish courts is that there's no barrier other than cultural ones to prevent a Muslim woman from becoming a legal expert (Mohammed encouraged Aisha to be versed in jurisprudence and told Muslims to take half of their religion from her).

We would be making a wrong if we didn't consider the history of divorce in Britain. I don't think it became easier to get divorced until the end of the 1960s when a separation of 2 years was ground for divorce (if both agreed) or 5 years (if one agreed). Before then, the cost was prohibitive.


----------



## Spion (Oct 13, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> I'm from Hackney


That's North East London 

I thought you'd been living in N'castle. Soz, mixing you up with some other pooch then


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 13, 2009)

> Until 1858 divorce could only be obtained by an expensive act of Parliament. Ecclesiastical courts could grant legal separations, but these did not permit either partner to remarry. From 1858 a new court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes was established, which became part of the High Court in 1875 in the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. Indexes to divorce decrees absolute are held by the Principal Registry of the Family Division, who will undertake a search for a fee and provide copies of the decrees absolute if the divorce was granted in the High Court, or arrange for a copy to be sent to you from a county court. If you want to know the grounds for divorce you need to request details from the decree nisi as well.
> 
> Surviving divorce case files and papers are held in The National Archives in the series J 77, with indexes in J 78. Most case files survive from 1858 to 1927, but only about 80% survive from 1928 to 1937. After 1937, only a tiny sample of some 250 files survive as examples of different types of divorce case. No case files survive after 1954.http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/familyhistory/guide/ancestorslaw/divorce.htm





> The 1857 Matrimonial Causes Act allowed ordinary people to divorce. Before then, divorce was largely open only to men, and had to be granted by an Act of Parliament, which was hugely expensive, and therefore was also open only to the rich. (Long before then, of course, Henry VIII was granted a divorce by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and church courts retained the power to dissolve marriages.)
> 
> Under the new law, women divorcing on the grounds of adultery not only had to prove their husbands had been unfaithful but also had to prove additional faults, which included cruelty, rape and incest.
> 
> ...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/sep/19/divorce-law-history


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 13, 2009)

Spion said:


> That's North East London
> 
> I thought you'd been living in N'castle. Soz, mixing you up with some other pooch then



I was living in Newcastle for a year, I thought my from Hackney ness was pretty well known.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 13, 2009)

I don't really like this thing of posting up sexist aspects of Britain - most of us are in favour of reforming those and are quite frankly glad they've changed.  Only dishonest BNP supporters cite the sexist and homophobic elements of islam while supporting sexism and homophobia themselves.  I'm just hopeful that our attitude on it is across the board and not swayed by cultural relativism.


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 13, 2009)

I dislike intensely this use of 'cultural relativism' as an entirely negative term, partly because I first heard it used in that way by fundamentalist christians. While I don't believe that all truths are equally valid or any bollocks like that, one of the reasons that people adopted a 'cultural relativist' position is that it can be very difficult to understand the logic of cultural practices while standing outside that culture - something that a lot of posters on these boards prove repeatedly whenever they post about 'Islam'.

And no, that's not a defence of sexism in Islam, it's just suggesting that you may not understand sexism in Islam, the way it functions, or the ways it can be fought, and your simplistic notion that fighting it requires the same methods as fighting sexism in our culture suggests that you need a bit of a reality check in the form of actually understanding why cultural relativist ideas exist in the first place.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 13, 2009)

If you support sexism in one culture (and deride all attempts to combat it as 'racist') whilst not in another, then you are being culturally relativist, imo.

Look at the bending over backwards to support islam's dislike of women marrying 'out'.  I don't see the same support for the BNP's policy against mixed race relationships...


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 13, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> If you support sexism in one culture (and deride all attempts to combat it as 'racist') whilst not in another, then you are being culturally relativist, imo.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 13, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> Look at the bending over backwards to support islam's dislike of women marrying 'out'.  I don't see the same support for the BNP's policy against mixed race relationships...



You mean PARENT's dislike, not ISLAM's dislike. 

Some parents are cool with their kids falling in love with someone not from their culture, some are very hostile/shunning about it.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2009)

The problem is though that it's not just muslims and if you pretend otherwise you are an idiot. You know sikhism, that very "tolerant" religion where there is supposedly equality between men and women? Well when I was working for the rape crisis centre I had to process some stories about honour killings and most of them were from the sikh community. I personally spoke to a woman ages ago who siad that she had been raped by her cousins and threatened with death because she had gone out with a white boy. She wasn't muslim 

Aspects of Jewish law are even worse and more sexist than Islam. Have you seen the clothes that hasidic women wear ffs? Men and women not allowed together on buses. Prayers (and this was only taken out of the prayer book with the introduction of the Reform prayer book, which is not recognised in Orthodox Judaism) saying "Blessed are you Lord for not making me a women". And if you are a religious orthodox Jew you might well be praying this prayer every day depending on your beliefs 

And some fundamentalists in Israel have taken that a step further with the introduction o fthe "Jewish burkha". 

The only reason people find reasons to claim tat Islam is more sexist than other religions is because Islam is in the news all the time, were we still living in the 1930s people would be claiming Judaism is the most sexist.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 13, 2009)

All these religions have a huge diversity of believe and practice, with the role of women varying considerably - the experience of a middle class Keralan Hindu woman for example would be very different from that of a poor Rajasthani Hindu woman.  Ditto in Islam and Christianity.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 13, 2009)

btw im not saying your an idiot mate, but there are some very dangerous misconceptions being propagated at the moment ...


----------



## likesfish (Oct 13, 2009)

religious courts a bad thing for women


----------



## Nigel (Oct 13, 2009)

likesfish said:


> oh really
> 
> From the community that brought honour killings and forced marrige back to the UK Excuse me If I don't leap up and down with Joy of the idea of women "voluntarly" agreeing to be treated less fairly
> Nobody would suggest that not agreeing to sharia sorting something out might find themselves I dunno killed and dumped in a suitcase.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tims-lover-tells-affair-shamed-community.html


Quite ignorant of Southern Asian culture, religons.
Honour killings have been carried by all religous groups also in the Britain

"Commander Andy Baker added: "Violence in the name of culture will not be tolerated. Murder in the name of honour will be punished by the severest penalties available in law."

Scotland Yard believe there were 12 'honour killings' in the UK last year and said they were not restricted to Muslims, but also occurred in Sikh and Christian families."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/3149030.stm

"A Christian father tossed 4 of his kids off the bridge in Arkansas. Another Christian father burnt his wife and 4 kids in Cincinnati this Friday. Seems like a case of “Christian Honor Killings” to me. Don’t you agree? Be sure to post about these cases of “Christian Honor Killings” everywhere you post. I will be sure to do that."
http://boldcolorconservative.com/2008/01/10/honor-killings-arrive-in-america-update/

I doubt very much that Ro v Wade or any other progressive legislation for the rights of women has been influenced by Biblcal or Orthodox Christian Teachings,but by struggle and society becoming increasingly secular and accomodating.

If you read the new testament of the Bible its pretty mysogenistic, especially when Pauls writing.

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"

"Thou shalt not suffer a woman to teach or have authority over man"
Romans

You'll be hard pushed to find anyting in the Koran that sexist.

It was only two hundred years ago that British were burning women alive, 
Hundred or so burying them alive, less than fifty locking women up for being nymphomaniacs and/or having children out of wedlock.

Nonconfomist christians in the late eighteenth century nineteenth century were'nt brilliant on the subject with some of their attitudes around contageous diseases act. 

The only reason you are complaining about Muslims around this issue is to morally justify xenophobia and cultural intolerence.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 13, 2009)

we've neutered the c of e nigel it still has its courts but there mostly for naughty vicars and er hav'nt the foggiest what else
 importing a new varitation of woman hating thanks but no thanks


----------



## Nigel (Oct 13, 2009)

What about the evangelical(christian)right!
Why are'nt you complaining about them?

Have you ever talked to an Iman or Muslim/Islamic Scholar?
Or for that matter taken any time out to see how the English Legal System works.
Where do you get this deep insight into Sharia Law, Islamic Culture(which is as diverse as the world that we live in) and its inter-relation with Western Society!


----------



## Nigel (Oct 13, 2009)

frogwoman said:


> The problem is though that it's not just muslims and if you pretend otherwise you are an idiot. You know sikhism, that very "tolerant" religion where there is supposedly equality between men and women? Well when I was working for the rape crisis centre I had to process some stories about honour killings and most of them were from the sikh community. I personally spoke to a woman ages ago who siad that she had been raped by her cousins and threatened with death because she had gone out with a white boy. She wasn't muslim
> 
> Aspects of Jewish law are even worse and more sexist than Islam. Have you seen the clothes that hasidic women wear ffs? Men and women not allowed together on buses. Prayers (and this was only taken out of the prayer book with the introduction of the Reform prayer book, which is not recognised in Orthodox Judaism) saying "Blessed are you Lord for not making me a women". And if you are a religious orthodox Jew you might well be praying this prayer every day depending on your beliefs
> 
> ...


Very true, just look at the way the Sikhs acted during the Diaspora and Partition, would rather murder all their women folk rather than let a muslim touch them!

In many Gudwaras men and women worship seperately but no one seems to make a big deal about it.

Saying that prefer Sikhism to Islam.
Definitely more progressive!
And they do better grub!


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 13, 2009)

Brainaddict said:


> I dislike intensely this use of 'cultural relativism' as an entirely negative term, partly because I first heard it used in that way by fundamentalist christians. While I don't believe that all truths are equally valid or any bollocks like that, one of the reasons that people adopted a 'cultural relativist' position is that it can be very difficult to understand the logic of cultural practices while standing outside that culture - something that a lot of posters on these boards prove repeatedly whenever they post about 'Islam'.
> 
> And no, that's not a defence of sexism in Islam, it's just suggesting that you may not understand sexism in Islam, the way it functions, or the ways it can be fought, and your simplistic notion that fighting it requires the same methods as fighting sexism in our culture suggests that you need a bit of a reality check in the form of actually understanding why cultural relativist ideas exist in the first place.


This is, quite simply, nonsense.  Sexism in Islam has the same roots as sexism in Judaism and Christianity.

Cultural relavitism is basically a racist ideology, based on the idea that people of other races and nationalities are somehow essentially different to us in a way that makes understanding between the two difficult, if not impossible.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 13, 2009)

Nigel said:


> What about the evangelical(christian)right!
> Why are'nt you complaining about them?
> 
> Have you ever talked to an Iman or Muslim/Islamic Scholar?
> ...



no on anything to do with islamic law no.
 just treat women 2nd class loot on sharia.org.uk its in there FAQS
 so obvioulsy not a good thing


----------



## Nigel (Oct 13, 2009)

likesfish said:


> no on anything to do with islamic law no.
> just treat women 2nd class loot on sharia.org.uk its in there FAQS
> so obvioulsy not a good thing


You'll be pushed to find organised religon that isn't, are you going to start campaigning against sexism in Rastafarianism.
"world is a faceless whore........."
Out of curiosity where is the offending article?


----------



## likesfish (Oct 13, 2009)

http://www.islamic-sharia.org/general/on-the-testimony-of-women.html

though it sounds like shaira isn't even that clear bitlike whatever you local inman decides is sharia


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 14, 2009)

.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 14, 2009)

.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 14, 2009)

> I think they're quite right to try and use those debates and their experiences to put forward their politics - it'd be a terribly run campaign that chose not to, one based more on cowardice than atual commitment.



i agree, however



butchersapron said:


> What makes you say that? Do you think they're lying when they say that they oppose all faith-based laws and feature that position prominently in their public materials?



I don't think they're lying but you have to look really hard on their quite comprehensive website to find any mention of the beth din and no mention of christianity's influence over the supposedly secular law in the UK (laws on gay marriage, prostitution, even drugs, could be argued to have a basis in protestentism - although im not seriously suggesting they should muddy the waters to that extent)

I think Maryam and co are media savvy enough to know how this will be portrayed in the press, which will be as a march against sharia in the uk

this is an issue that has many misconceptions, such as the idea that a saudi style regime is just around the corner - part of an honest and fair debate would be to point out that this will not affect criminal law, human rights law etc, the other part is to point out that this already exists for one ethnic group and the sky has yet to fall down, many, many people have never heard of the beth din and are unlikely to find anything about it from onelawforall

but as frogwman has pointed out a large amount of suffering and injustice also takes part due to beth din tribunals and the only sensible position to take is to be against them both - difficult for what is seemingly a call out from the IWCP, but theres no shortage of jewish communists they could have networked with 

as it stands i suspect the EDL will rather like this, it will further inflame tensions in muslim communities and muddy peoples understanding of whats being proposed

a strong multi-faith (or ex-faith) march calling equally for no sharia, end the beth din and the disestablishment of the CofE would have put clear blue water between them and the EDL, would seem less provocative to moderate muslims or those using sharia appeals as a tool of relative empowerment (as jeff points out early in the thread) and would place the debate about sharia in the UK in context

now its possible something like that could come out of this, but i suspect not, and i further suspect this is more about promoting the agenda of the IWCP on the back of recent headlines


----------



## Combustible (Oct 14, 2009)

There does appear to be a contradiction in arguing that we shouldn't be 'tolerant' of sexist religious courts based on a notion of cultural relativism but then saying that the practitioners of the religion are too primitive and not 'westernized' enough to be able to voluntarily consent to these courts' judgments.


----------



## Brainaddict (Oct 14, 2009)

In Bloom said:


> This is, quite simply, nonsense.  Sexism in Islam has the same roots as sexism in Judaism and Christianity.


Ah, you think the problem is the religion then? Interesting. I take it you've investigated the history of the Arab peninsular and found that there was no sexism pre-dating Islam there. And you found that historically speaking there was no sexism in Europe before Christianity. So it makes sense that, since the whole problem is the Abrahamic religions, the roots of the sexism are the same everywhere.

Can you tell I'm using sarcasm?



In Bloom said:


> Cultural relavitism is basically a racist ideology, based on the idea that people of other races and nationalities are somehow essentially different to us in a way that makes understanding between the two difficult, if not impossible.


You can say it, but it doesn't make it true. For one thing, it doesn't say that mutual understanding between cultures is impossible - just very very difficult.


Anyway, this is all a rather silly distraction from the real political issues in this country at the moment.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 14, 2009)

You're misusing sarcasm. 

You're also the sort of dilletante idiot that these broad histories like Jared D breed whilst slagging off other broad histories for grand narrativism.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 15, 2009)

Sharia appears in the UK to have no central authority or kite mark so nobody knows what training or quality of arrbitration your getting.
 getting uk law involved in backing up dubious decisons bad move.
 it encourges the truly loonspud sharia4uk 
 who if they don't get a grant from the bnp really should


----------



## In Bloom (Oct 15, 2009)

Brainaddict said:


> Ah, you think the problem is the religion then?


No, but it doesn't help and is somewhat relevant to a discussion of *religious* courts, no?



> Interesting. I take it you've investigated the history of the Arab peninsular and found that there was no sexism pre-dating Islam there. And you found that historically speaking there was no sexism in Europe before Christianity. So it makes sense that, since the whole problem is the Abrahamic religions, the roots of the sexism are the same everywhere.
> 
> Can you tell I'm using sarcasm?


I can tell that your ego is way out of proportion for somebody with so little capacity for understanding what other people are saying.



> You can say it, but it doesn't make it true. For one thing, it doesn't say that mutual understanding between cultures is impossible - just very very difficult.


So "difficult, if not impossible", then?  Idiot.


----------



## frued (Oct 15, 2009)

Hi All,
Im new here and due to be at the EDL protest this weekend in Swansea.  Im thinking twice about this 1) because of the min's silence wrecked by the UAF which was not needed and bad publicity and 2) When Islam 4 UK march in London as annouced today to insist on Sharia law for the UK the EDL will definitly be there so where does the UAF stand on this?  Err whos side would we be on ?!?!?

The point about Sharia being ok if its voluntary is never going to happen, think about it a 15 year old girl going to a court where her parents, uncles, all friends and family and entire community tell her is the law deciding not to?  Islam doesn't really let you pick and chose the bits of the Quaran you like.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 15, 2009)




----------



## frogwoman (Oct 16, 2009)

thanks for that post smokedout. x


----------



## invisibleplanet (Oct 16, 2009)

smoked out said:
			
		

> now its possible something like that could come out of this, but i suspect not, and i further suspect this is more about promoting the agenda of the IWCP on the back of recent headlines



I could only support a march if it was against *fundamentalism*, rather than being _against religious observance_, which is what this march from 1L4A is _against_. So simply, I can't support 1L4A.


----------



## durruti02 (Oct 16, 2009)

smokedout said:


> I don't think they're lying but you have to look really hard on their quite comprehensive website to find any mention of the beth din and no mention of christianity's influence over the supposedly secular law in the UK (laws on gay marriage, prostitution, even drugs, could be argued to have a basis in protestentism - although im not seriously suggesting they should muddy the waters to that extent)
> 
> a strong multi-faith (or ex-faith) march calling equally for no sharia, end the beth din and the disestablishment of the CofE would have put clear blue water between them and the EDL, would seem less provocative to moderate muslims or those using sharia appeals as a tool of relative empowerment (as jeff points out early in the thread) and would place the debate about sharia in the UK in context
> 
> now its possible something like that could come out of this, but i suspect not, and i further suspect this is more about promoting the agenda of the IWCP on the back of recent headlines



isn't this simply as they are a group that is muslim women? who would themselves feel uncomfrotable about highlighting other religious ussues particulalry jewish and the possible reaction there would be to that??

i think it is best that resistance comes from within particular backgrounds otherwise it gets messy


----------



## likesfish (Oct 16, 2009)

The point about Sharia being ok if its voluntary is never going to happen, think about it a 15 year old girl going to a court where her parents, uncles, all friends and family and entire community tell her is the law deciding not to? Islam doesn't really let you pick and chose the bits of the Quaran you like.


exactly a "voluntary" code  that treats anyone whose not male as 2nd class should not get the support of the UK gov


----------

