This shouldn’t even be controversial. But it is likely it won’t pass.
“Bid to ban Muslims from replacing UK law with Sharia courts to be put before MPs TODAY,” by David Maddox, Express, March 11, 2016:
A private members bill due to be voted on today would stop religious organisations from pretending to be able to act as a court when they have no legal.
Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill, first introduced by Baroness Caroline Cox, which has already been passed in the Lords, will also force them to stop discriminating against women.
The bill comes amid growing concern over the way Sharia courts are being used by many in the Muslim community as an alternative legal system in Britain and how they are systematically discriminating against women in civil cases such as divorce.
The bill was first introduced by humanitarian campaigner Baroness Caroline Cox amid concerns over “systematic” discrimination against women in these quasi-legal systems including Sharia courts.
She said: “Today MPs get the opportunity to help women whose suffering would make the suffragettes turn in their graves. Countless victims of religiously-sanctioned gender discrimination are being treated as second class citizens, no better than the chattels of their husbands.
Baroness Cox added: “While the Bill respects the fundamental principle of freedom of religion and belief, we cannot allow rulings which are incompatible with the laws, values, principles and policies of our country.”
The legislation comes before MPs in a week where International Women’s Day has been marked.
There are serious concerns over the way Sharia Courts are making rulings on marriage law and divorce with Muslims but not having any legal status.
Despite having no legal status they are also providing families with official marriage and divorce certificates.
It is also understood that the all-male courts are rigged against women fuelled by “a toxic mix of religious fundamentalism, culture and tight-knit communities” according to a book published last year.
Writer and researcher Machteld Zee, a Dutch academic, said: “Sharia councils uphold the theory and practice of the strong hold men have over women.”…

Jay Boo says
“Bid to ban Muslims ….”
No need to say anymore than those fist four words.
I’m all for it.
linnte says
Good luck and God bless Ms Cox!
Jaem says
God help this bill stand firm and uphold the laws of Britain!
sencit says
I can name the three wise monkeys in the picture!
Mohammad. Mohammad and Mohammed.
miriamrove says
Well said!!! M
Jay Boo says
Three dumb stooges — MO, Curly, Larry
Jerry says
And they all look hard at work, faces buried in islam’s retarded morality, looking for loop holes and planning our destruction. They look like the apes from “Planet of the Apes.” Not the kind of remark that Mr. Spencer hopes for, but I’m only being honest. Hey, at least I’m not cutting heads or torturing for some demonic god. I don’t care what a person looks like. Unless their religion wants to destroy my nation and kill my neighbors for no good reason. Then guess what, I don’t feel the need to be polite. Yeah, apes. Because their religion and politics are brutish, like an ape. You want to conquer me for some demon and murdering prophet? On my worst day I know that’s wrong. Take your hateful, booga-booga nonsense and get out of the country I love.
Linde Barrera says
To my fellow UK Jihad Watch posters- How did it get this far? The law of any land must prevail over side rulings of any religion. I hope those dumb and witless multiculturalists in the UK government get out-voted by those with more realistic and civil visions and intentions. Seems common sense is not all that common! I also believe that Islam must be banned in all civilized countries. Amen.
Jay Boo says
Even better than banning Islam would be to reveal Islam.
Or better yet ban it and reveal it.
Banning Islam would only be temporary like a quarantine while treating the symptoms of the disease.
Revealing Islam would give it no place to hide.
Atheist7 says
Jay Boo. I think that you have a very good and catchy phrase here. It is like a campaign slogan: “Reveal Islam!” This is exactly what we want to do. If we say REVEAL ISLAM, the apologists would think: Yes, Reveal Islam as a religion of peace. But then we could Reveal Islam by citing what happens when Islam, and its associated Sharia Law, invades a country. How free speech is lost and how women are reduced to 2nd or 3rd class citizens…….
With respect to Islamic thinking, or lack thereof as is usually the case, there is a 10-page “book” that I reviewed entitled “How and Why I converted to Islam” by Angela Waldron.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Why-I-Converted-Islam-ebook/dp/B00Q3BV83S/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1457716355&sr=1-1&keywords=how+and+why+i+converted+to+islam.
Anyway the book is on Amazon and shows the apologist’s sick mind-set.
Atheist7 says
Angela Walden not Waldron.
mortimer says
To Linde:
An Indian citizen in 1985 tried to have the Koran banned under an Indian law that prohibits ‘incitement of violence’.
Chandmal Chopra of Calcutta, on March 29, 1985, filed a Writ of Petition in the Calcutta High Court stating that publication of the Quran infringes Sections 153A and 295A of the I.P.C. because it incites violence, disturbs public tranquility, promotes, on grounds of religion, feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities, and insults other religions or religious beliefs of other communities in India’. He also sought a ruling nisi against the Government of West Bengal ‘to show cause as to why a writ of mandamus be not issued to it directing it to declare each copy of Quran whether in the original Arabic or in any of the languages as forfeited to the Government’ in terms of Section 95 of the Cr.P.C.
The case caused considerable excitement among the Muslim ‘believers’ (Mu’mins) and interest among the ‘infidels’ (Kafirs) in April-May, 1985. The press in India and abroad published many headlines about what was rightly regarded as an unprecedented event in the history of religion. It was the first time that a pagan kafir had legally challenged the character of a document hailed as the ‘Word of Allah’. The roles now stood reversed. So far, it had only been the privilege of Muslims in India to ban and burn the sacred literature of the pagans.
After considerable rioting, the Petition was disallowed by the High Court. But the issues raised by the Petition remain pertinent. No court of law can deny to ‘kafirs’ the right to challenge the treatment prescribed for them in the Quran at the hands of the Muslim ‘believers’.
Before Chandmal Chopra came into the picture, Himangshu Kishore Chakraborty, also of Calcutta, had written a letter on July 20, 1984 to the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of West Bengal, pointing out that the Quran contains matter which makes its publication an offence under Sections 153A and 295A of the I.P.C. In three Annexures to his letter, he had cited quite a few verse of the Quran – 37 verses which ‘preach cruelty, incite violence and disturb public peace’; 17 verses which ‘promote, on ground of religion, feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities in India’; and 31 verses which ‘insult other religions as also the religious beliefs of other communities’. He had requested that all copies of the Quran in the original Arabic as well as in translations be forfeited forthwith to the Government in terms of Section 95 of the Cr.P.C.
Atheist Kaffur says
Angola banned Islam. There reasoning was that Islam was incompatible with their multicultural society. They didn’t call it evil or satanic, or the anti=Christ religion. etc. Incompatible appears to be sufficient reason.
Lee says
The country also has a strong history with Marxism in the 20th century. The flag of Angola has a definite Marxist look. Could that have been the root cause of the ban? Did they also ban Christianity and animist/native religions?
Angemon says
Well, it was created by a Marxist government.
gravenimage says
Atheist Kaffur wrote:
Angola banned Islam.
…………………
AK, I’m not sure why this myth persists:
“Angola denies it banned Islam, destroyed mosques”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/11/angola-denies-it-banned-islam-destroyed-mosques
Angemon says
I think it persists not so much because people would love for something like that to be true but because it’s actually plausible. Angola doesn’t officially recognize islam as a religion and demolished several mosques:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPvYZlMURfU
Angola’s requirements to officially recognize a religion require a certain number of professed followers spread through a certain number of provinces, and the mosques were demolished based on technicalities (lack or building permit, permit acquired through bribery, etc.), but muslims in Angola claimed it was persecution and that the Catholic Church in Angola told the Angolan government they did not want muslims there. It’s easy to see why some people may believe that a case can be made for the Angolan government “shadowbanning” islam.
mortimer says
The UK government has a duty to protect women from exploitation or abuse. Period.
Do the right thing. Pass the legislation.
jayell says
Just look at the picture at the top of the article. Three pretentious old fossils wearing silly hats (even though they are indoors) and clothes that look like they came from the Oxfam store just round the corner, poring over pieces of paper that look like they ought to be ‘Important Documents’ with expressions resembling intense concentration as if they are about to make earth-shattering decisions (that might just transform the lives of the two people in the queue at the bus stop outside). Or are they concentrating so hard because they’re trying make out the words printed on the page because they left their ‘Janet and John Go To Skool’ technicolor illustrated English dictionary (borrowed from one of their hundreds of grandsons’ Kindergarten library) at home. Or maybe they are, like their Great Prophet, illiterate, and they’re just posing for the camera while they try and find out where the pictures are.
Seriously, this situation is so pathetic one doesn’t know whether to laugh or just be physically sick. Here we have the land of Magna Carta, the ‘Mother of Parliaments’, the inventor of templates for democratic government all around the world, entertaining the ‘menaingful input’ of jokers like these three!
Lee says
They need Henry VIII to impose his will again. What they have is a spineless jellyfish.
jayellj says
What, and close down all the mosques like Henry did with the monasteries? It would make the same kind of politico/economic sense. There can be no doubt now, especially after the publication of some details from those leaked ISIS documents, that our oh-so-pious, loving and peaceful muslim friends are after taking over the whole show, just like Henry didn’t appreciate the Pontif of Rome having a guiding hand in our nascent English democracy (among one or two other considerations!). So, yes, who’s going to ‘do a Henry VIII’ now?
meredkeneged says
Many Americans posting here have no concept of how different British law is from American Law. Many many of us here in the UK neither want sharia law nor muslims here. This is the legacy of the kind of fascist liberalism pushed by Tony BLiar and now David Cameron, useful “dhimmis” of the European Union. That’s why so many people are voting for BREXIT (I am one).
WorkingClassPost says
JB – Interesting phraseology indeed.
‘Bid to ban muslims’ already sounds like what they like to call hate speech, as if we want to stop muzzies from doing something just because they’re muzzie.
Why not ‘Bid to prevent discrimination of sharia injustice’ or some such terminology? More accurate and more descriptive, too.
Seems as though every media outlet automatically views them as victims nowadays.
mortimer says
The Koran could conceivably be considered ‘hate speech’, confiscated and prohibited.
If a law suit against the Koran were to proceed in a number of countries it would make many more people aware of the 164 jihad verses and many rants that tell Muslims to hate kafirs, especially Jews and Christians and to remove their human rights.
WorkingClassPost says
Can’t help wondering why it hasn’t been tested in a true court of law.
Something similar has been done before:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Litten
Lee says
It’s hate speech against Christians and Jews so there’s no issue as far as Loretta Lynch is concerned. After all, Christians are far more of a threat than ISIL. To Obama’s regime I mean.
meredkeneged says
That’s why we have to change the narrative at every opportunity.
Angemon says
Make sharia courts illegal. Problem solved.
Charli Main says
@ Angemon
Muslims now operate a parallel society in Britain. British laws mean nothing to them.
Any Muslim taking a complaint to the British Judiciary would be, at best ostracised by other Muslims in that community. At worst they would be attacked and killed. I doubt that ANY Muslim woman would risk her life by asking a British court for justice.
gr8H8er says
Being from the Southern United States, I’d prefer not to be called a ‘Yank’, I won’t flinch at the other names – my forefathers and I have elected malicious scum bag after psychopathic war monger after narcissistic moron to represent us as a people. Reprehensible representation can only result in one image.
Looking over the pond, especially at Merkel, leads me to believe filthy bastard government has gone pandemic! Common sense in governance along with accountability have become absolutely alien concepts. It is no wonder the majority of concerned, conscientious persons are walking around in a state of horrified shock and disbelief.
When people are frazzled and at their wit’s end, simplifying matters often provides a great deal of relief and even helps to return balance. As a result, I propose we all turn to Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language and redefine ‘religion’. Of course, you Brits will no doubt be much more adept at hammering out the specifics when it comes to proper terms and I have every confidence in you choice of wording.
What I propose is something along the lines of:
1 a: the state of a religious
b (1) : the service and worship of God with love and acceptance of all or the supernatural, embracing hope, faith, charity, stewardship and love (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith of a benevolent nature or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices based on hope, faith, charity, stewardship and general love thy neighbor, do no harm to others type shit
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity to the Good and Right; Love and Light : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs based in hope, faith, charity, stewardship and love, held to with ardor and faith for one’s self, not imposed on others
Anything else should be called a cult or faction or government. The term ‘religion’ should then be inclusive of modern Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca, etc and exclude groups such as satanists, lucifinarians, mohammadians, vampirists and ‘fuckyou I’ll kill you’ groups from taking advantage of the designation…
David says
It’s one thing to pass a law banning Islamic courts, but will it be enforced?
We have had a law in the UK which made FGM illegal ever since 1985, but only ever one
prosecution for FGM has been made, which occurred in Feb. last year (2015).
And guess what? The doctor who was accused of performing the FGM was cleared!
If the law to ban Islamic courts is passed, we will need to enforce it very strictly, which will mean
undercover police making sure these Islamic courts don’t go “underground”. Also, we will need to impose
fairly draconian punishments for all organisers of these Islamic courts; petty fines won’t be enough.
LR says
Yes, a law is good, but enforcement is what matters!
Something is better than nothing though.
If anyone advocates for Sharia – that should be made illegal, and deportation the consequence. Seems quite do-able to me.
the renegade says
Nice pic. Looks like a shot from planet of the apes which is where the world is headed if these skull capped knuckle heads have their way…
Calling these dumbasses “scholars” is a total misnomer.
The intelligent and wise shall prevail..
gravenimage says
UK: Bid to ban Muslims from replacing UK laws with Sharia courts
…………………….
Bravo Baroness Cox. Every Infidel nation should ban Shari’ah.
I’ve been unable to find out what happened with this vital vote. Any British Jihad Watchers know?