More on this story. "Bill limiting sharia law is motivated by 'concern for Muslim women'," from the Guardian, June 8:
Islamic courts would be forced to acknowledge the primacy of English law under a bill being introduced in the House of Lords.
The horror!
The bill, proposed by Lady Cox and backed by women's rights groups and the National Secular Society, was drawn up because of "deep concerns" that Muslim women are suffering discrimination within closed sharia law councils.
The Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill will introduce an offence carrying a five-year jail sentence for anyone falsely claiming or implying that sharia courts or councils have legal jurisdiction over family or criminal law. The bill, which will apply to all arbitration tribunals if passed, aims to tackle discrimination, which its supporters say is inherent in the courts, by banning the sharia practice of giving woman's testimony only half the weight of men's.
That comes from Qur'an 2:282, confirmed by a heartwarming hadith in Sahih Bukhari 1.6.301.
Cox said: "Equality under the law is a core value of British justice. My bill seeks to preserve that standard"
In a similar way to Jewish Beth Din courts, sharia tribunals can make verdicts in cases involving financial and property issues which, under the 1996 Arbitration Act, are enforceable by county courts or the high court.
They do not have a supremacist agenda, however, or designs on replacing the larger governing system through incremental expansion. Sharia courts, on the other hand, got a foot in the door, and are already trying to force a broader role for themselves:
The tribunals should only be deciding civil disputes but two years ago the think-tank Civitas claimed sharia courts, some 85 of which operate in Birmingham, London, Bradford and Manchester, had crossed the proper limits of their jurisdiction and were regularly giving illegal advice on marriage and divorce.
Intolerable:
Cox said they are increasingly ruling on family and criminal cases, including child custody and domestic violence. Jurisdiction "creep" had caused considerable suffering among women compelled to return to abusive husbands, or to give up children and property.
Diana Nammi, of the Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation, said: "Women and children are very vulnerable members of the community and under sharia law they become invisible. Women and children are the most vulnerable in minority communities where religion tradition and culture has become the identity taking precedence over the human rights and women's rights that are protected under civil, UK law."
The bill requires public bodies to inform women they have fewer legal rights if their marriage is unrecognised in English law. Cox said she had found "considerable evidence" of women, some of whom are brought to Britain speaking little English and kept ignorant of their legal rights, suffering domestic violence or unequal access to divorce, due to discriminatory decisions made. "We cannot continue to condone this situation. Many women say: 'We came to this country to escape these practices only to find the situation is worse here.' "
Claims of "voluntary" participation or even preference by Muslim women must also be taken with a grain of salt given how tightly many are controlled by their families.
Cox said she would be asking the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, who caused a row last year when he said a recognised role for sharia law seemed unavoidable, to back her bill. She said: "By appearing to condone this inherent discrimination system which is causing real suffering to women, he has failed to recognise that suffering. He is appearing to forward the acceptability and validity of Sharia law in this country."...
That aint the daily mail, thats the dhimmi paper known as the grauniad.
Baroness Cox is a true understander of Islam http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/05/geert-wilders-house-of-lords
Fixed! I can tell it's almost the weekend -- I very nearly wrote "Grauniad" while editing!
The big question mark is, why the hell did the idiots who run the U.K. allow shiria law in the first place. There are now more lunatics than ever running the lunatic asylum that was once the U.K.
The big question mark is, why the hell did the idiots who run the U.K. allow shiria law in the first place. There are now more lunatics than ever running the lunatic asylum that was once the U.K.
It's about time that Brits wake up and address this evil religion that has crept in with the tides! Obvious question: if sharia law is something to be protected against, why isn't the religion that spawned such evil treated the same (ie by out lawing it)!
I wonder if UK-based mahoundians, already used to the sharia courts (and the free upscale housing, fat welfare checks, culturally-relativistic judges letting them get away with crimes and preventing their deportation to their native cesspools; where, by the way, the crimes committed in the UK would not make their "human rights" endangered in any way, since crimes against the kufr would make them be welcomed back as heroes) will not put up a hell of a fight against this bill, by means of thuggery as well as the old playing of the "victim-of-racism" card.
I personally can't wait to see Uriah Heep's, I mean, knife-boy Inayat Bunglawala's shrieking reaction to this.
It was the Labour idiots who allowed in sharia courts, all on the grounds of multiculti and diversity, + 'if we allow Beth Din courts we must allow sharia, otherwise we're being racist.'
I voted Tory this time round, simply because I didn't think UKIP had a chance. I really didn't think camoron would take on the muslims, and in a sense I was right, because it's a peeress in the Lords who has taken up the issue. Thank God Bliar didn't get the time to wipe out the Lords, as he would have loved to have done. All kudos to Lady Cox, now it will be enlightening to see which politicos support her, and what that bearded lefty Rowan has to say.
Take heed, America ! This is what happens if muslim sharia is allowed to get even a tiny foothold - give them an inch and they'll take a mile.
Yes, it will be very interesting to see, not only the muslim reaction, but how the politicians react to the muslim reaction !
""Aina Khan, a solicitor who advises on sharia law, said: "Where she goes wrong is assuming that some sort of misogyny and discrimination goes on. Eighty per cent of its users are women.""
That made me laugh so hard, i've split my sides! It's priceless - absolutely priceless. Perhaps even breathtaking. Only The Daily Dhimmi, or The Guardian as it's popularly known in the UK, would come up with this. For our American readers, The Guardian used to be The Manchester Guardian. And that's an important point, as Manchester is the well-spring of all communism. It is the city where Marx devised his doctrine, where he sat with Engels looking out at the factories, dreaming of the day when capitalism and democracy would be destroyed. Somewhat ironic cosnidering he never worked a day in his life, and was supported by the profits from Engels' capitalist textile factory...in Manchester.
The Guardian is still chained to this totalitarian psychogeography from its location in London now, to its beginnings in Manchester - and it shows in truckloads, doesn't it?
In answer to the question posed by Tondor, it was allowed by the high priests of multiculturalism because they think that being 'nice' to muslims wil make them more like us, and like us more, and not want to attack us. We're all one big, happy-clappy, smiley family, remember? All it does it make them despise our weakness more, and demand even more from us.
'We came to this country to escape these practices only to find the situation is worse here.' "
The environmental cure does not work because you must take yourself with you when you go...To expect Mahoundians to be something other than what they are when they change locations, is unrealistic...
"...sharia tribunals can make verdicts in cases involving financial and property issues which, under the 1996 Arbitration Act, are enforceable by county courts or the high court"
Isn't that a problem because under shaira, women inherit less? Are there any provisions to stop that from happening in the bill?
Islamic law, indeed.
There was a terror cell uncovered a few kilometers from I live in Denmark, some years ago, with prison sentences from 5 to 11 years.
The first one has been set free now ....a little early but OK. He is a convert - their Infidel past forces them to prove they are holier than thou - and he refuses to recognize the fairness of the trial: the law is man made and not given by Allah, also he condemns Muslims who vote. "They have left their religion". "I am against democracy, a political system where power lies with the majority of the population" ..."Islam is the solution". He is clearly a wonder, and the only thing he has left behind in his cell seems to be his former long beard. "I intend to make full use of my freedom of expression". Yup, a little wonder he is.
Apparently some new de-radicalization program is to be applied, of the sort that allegedly has success among the Saudis and nowhere else.
Amazing, British lady politicians have spine as compared to their male counterparts!!
Western society has reached the point where it has to gaurd itself from a distorted set of rules that sanctions crime, rather than, punishing for and protecting us from it.
The UK, Europe and Americans need to stop their futile preoccupation with radical Islam and take positive steps to repeal the liberal immigration policies that have fascilitated and exposed us to this scourge, we're failing to deal with.
Radical Islam knows that in order for Shari'ah to truly take root, will require Muslim immigration for it's sustaining support.
Anything less than repealing our liberal immigration policies, 'once and for all' Shari'ah will only get stronger and we will be forever spitting against the wind.
Was it really for love of diversity & multiculturalism or was this just a tool to destroy?
"It was therefore a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country. It was done to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions.
It was done to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another 'multicultural' identity in its place. And it was done without telling or asking the British people whether they wanted their country and their culture to be transformed in this way."
http://tinyurl.com/yj3tv7a
We have leftist in US like this who I believe actually despise this country and want it fundamentally destroyed - perhaps made into something else they can rule over as anointed ones.
One can never see a mention of Archbishop Rowan Williams without thinking of this hilarious Chaucer parody:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/02/heere-bigynneth.html
Yes, I do agree destruction was the real reason, but they couldn't actually come out and say that - even the dimmest dhimmi might have woken up on that one, so they parrotted the multiculti/diversity bulls***.
"We have leftists in the US like this who I believe actually despise this country and want it fundamentally destroyed - perhaps made into something else they can rule over as anointed ones."
Like the rats who passed the immigration act of 1965 and are currently ensconced in the White House.
Bravo to these brave women! How can the West tolerates such violence and SLAVERY towards women/girls, especially in the West? But don't expect many barve women lik these around Europe - too many Socialist women are busy licking their Islamic Master boots!
CORRECTION: Bravo to these brave women! How can the West tolerates such violence and SLAVERY towards women/girls, especially in the West? But don't expect many brave women like these around Europe - too many Socialist/Left women are busy licking their Islamic Master boots instead!
"Many women say: 'We came to this country to escape these practices only to find the situation is worse here."
Somebody tell these dimwit women that the reason why those practices were followed in their previous countries is precisely because people there FOLLOWED Islam. So if you leave your Islamic country for a western one, but don't ditch Islam, you are going to end up in the same mess that you tried to escape. Not only that, your 'good' Islam will screw up the new society.
I think these women are attached to Islam, and hope that when they migrate to UK, somehow they'll only be enjoying the things-they-like in Islam. Muhammad was right - Muslimahs are indeed deficient in intelligence. If they were any smarter, they will dump Islam altogether before this evil becomes any more powerful. It is not impossible to ditch Islam if you are in UK, USA, India or any other non-Islamic country. It may be difficult but then you have to be brave and make effort to get good things in life.
If you are a muslimah reading this blog and want to apostatize successfully, post comments here and we will help you with expert advice (Don't use your real name, address etc). Alternatively, you can go to faithfreedom.org, atlas shrugs, alisina.org (these are the credible ones that I am aware of, although there are many more). But if you are looking for some kind of 'moderate' Islamic help, and you think that will make your life better, then fuhgettboutit.
just watch this loaded bbc drivel
http://youtu.be/Zk_FIQN5c0Q
the comments below are priceless
......want to see how & where the plot
was lost, (watch the presenter giving mo-hamhead, due reverence...gag! pass the sick bag)
on this bill, Baroness Cox
ANY such bill is to be roundly & loudly applauded...
however i repeat this here.
"a law in English for non-English speakers? the sad fact
In cities like Bradford the Shrouded Ones do NOT converse in English, some cannot read. 50% marriages are to spouses imported from Mirpur, often first cousins, and are indeed valued for there INABILITY to speak English.
The West Yorks Police is one of the biggest forces outside The Met but turns a blind eye to what happens in these townships so long as there are no explosions"
http://youtu.be/FcZVbjBGfBA
The dangerous nuttos are going to come out of the woodwork over this. It is the perfect opportunity for us to assist in a clean up of these potentially dangerous radicals.
If you see anyone make a veiled comment on the internet about the Baroness such as "she will have to watch her back" then immediately send:
1 The Quote
2 The speakers screename and whatever information about them you can get-
To American or British authorities.
DO NOT assume someone else will do it. If everyone is thinking that then the scuzz will get away with it.
DO NOT complain to Youtube or similar. They will just admonish them or shut down their account. Complain to youtube about users in other situations but not this particular one. Contact the police, homeland security, British police or British security services.
DO NOT warn the nutto that you will do so or have done so. It may feel good to think you are scaring the little snotbag but it will give them a chance to close their accounts. The first time they hear of this should be when the police are knocking on their door or they try to take a flight and see the security guard reaching for the rubber gloves.
This is the perfect opportunity to Bring Down The Hammer on a bunch of trolls. Let's take it. Remember, they will be trying to incite physical violence against a British peer (that's like a senator) so information you provide has a better chance of being taken seriously and acted upon.
I am not an expert in these matters at all. If I said anything stupid then please someone correct me by providing more appropriate information on how to report threats made online to the governmental bodies who will take them seriously the most.
Another website for frightened and disaffected Muslimahs in the UK, a good few of whom may be thinking of apostasising, is this one, run by an apostate from Islam in the UK, 'Hannah Shah' (now a Christian, and happily married to a Christian Englishman):
http://www.hannahshah.com/
Thanks for the info. Let's hope someone benefits from this.
I warned about this years ago. Now ministers admit I was right
By MELANIE PHILLIPS
Now they tell us. Ministers have finally admitted what I revealed in my book, Londonistan, back in 2006 and have written many times since then – that, incredible as it may seem, hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money that was supposed to be spent on countering Islamic extremism has gone to groups or individuals actually promoting Islamic extremism.
Paralysed by political correctness, the previous Labour government, the intelligence agencies, police, universities and other institutions decided to try to promote ‘moderate’ Muslim groups to tackle the extremists.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2000622/Islamic-extremism-I-warned-years-ago--ministers-admit-I-right.html#ixzz1Op5b4E74
Bunty, the bill does directly address this issue. As reported here http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/social/new-bill-to-stop-sharia-law-operating-in-the-uk:
The Bill’s proposals include:
* A new criminal offence of ‘falsely claiming legal jurisdiction’ for any person who adjudicates upon matters which ought to be decided by criminal or family courts. The maximum penalty would be five years in prison.
* Explicitly stating in legislation that sex discrimination law applies directly to arbitration tribunal proceedings. Discriminatory rulings may be struck down under the Bill.
* Requiring public bodies to inform women that they have fewer legal rights if their marriage is unrecognised by English law.
* Explicitly stating on the face of legislation that arbitration tribunals may not deal with matters of family law (such as legally recognised divorce or custody of children) or criminal law (such as domestic violence).
* Making it easier for a civil court to set aside a consent order if a mediation settlement agreement or other agreement was reached under duress.
* Explicitly stating on the face of legislation that a victim of domestic abuse is a witness to an offence and therefore should be expressly protected from witness intimidation.
The second proposal attempts to address your concern. However, the "ruling" can only be "struck down" if someone complains about it. I do wonder how much impact it will really have.
From the article: "Cox said she would be asking the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, who caused a row last year when he said a recognised role for sharia law seemed unavoidable, to back her bill.
'She said: "By appearing to condone this inherent discrimination system which is causing real suffering to women, he has failed to recognise that suffering. He is appearing to forward the acceptability and validity of Sharia law in this country."
It should be noted that Baroness Cox is a practising Christian, a churchwoman. I don't know whether she belongs to the Church of England, or to a different variety of Protestant; but in any case, it sounds as though she plans to hold the Archbishop's feet to the fire, metaphorically speaking. And good on her. The clergy are supposed to guide the laity, but things can also work the other way around: the laity can demand, in no uncertain terms, that the clergy shape up and do their job. And as far as I'm concerned, the Archbishop of Canterbury has *not* been doing his job. He hasn't uttered a squeak whilst the Muslim wolves gobble up his flock, not only abroad, but in England itself.
http://youtu.be/FcZVbjBGfBA
listen to her explain the bill herself
along with the arch bishop
I have written to Baroness Cox supporting her sponsorship of the Bill and suggesting she organises an online petition supporting the introduction of the Bill.
Might I urge all citizens of the U.K who subscribe to Jihad watch to contact the Baroness, compliment her and request an online petition.
The Baroness may be contacted in the following way.
Enter 'Baroness Cox' into your search engine. CLICK
Scroll down to the entry:-
'Baroness Cox All Lords (TheyWorkForYou.com) CLICK
CLICK on 'send a message to Baroness Cox'
Fill your details and write your message.
Thanks for the link NO!moh. .although that's the bishôp, not the archbishop. .hopefuly that will change in due course of time.
Thanks for that. Have done so, and also written to my MP.
I just clicked on the link. Saw that Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali is the guy in the youtube clip, alongside Baroness Cox.
He's clear and to the point and backs her up nicely. He has a very strong sense of the history of 'the West' and where our various rights and freedoms come from, and how precious they are.
I've met him, and have heard him speak here in Australia on three different occasions.
A good bloke.
I don't know when the current Archbishop of Canterbury is likely to be retiring (please, Lord, please, let it be sooner rather than later!) but when he does, I do hope that Bishop Michael will be a front-running candidate for the job...I'd certainly vote for him, if it was done that way (which it isn't).