Well this didn't make the mainstream news.

[gmc]

Judge’s matrimonial ruling is bound to horrify sharia law proponents

Safe bet that if the verdict had backed up sharia law the daily mail would have been all over it.

[AnneBoleyn]

This is very good news. Surely you agree.

[Oscar Namechange]

gmc;1399359 wrote: Judge’s matrimonial ruling is bound to horrify sharia law proponents

Safe bet that if the verdict had backed up sharia law the daily mail would have been all over it.


I thought of posting this.

Last time I looked there were 109 Sharia law courts In the UK.

I'm delighted. It sends a clear message that we simply don't pander to a religeous ruling that leaves a wife destitute,

[Bruv]

Forget the couple's religion, dismiss the mention of Sharia law, if the ex-wife is not short of cash, why should any ex husband bankroll her life?

[Oscar Namechange]

Bruv;1399367 wrote: Forget the couple's religion, dismiss the mention of Sharia law, if the ex-wife is not short of cash, why should any ex husband bankroll her life? I can not believe you said that.

Marraige Is a partnership. Just because a wife may not have had a job In an earning sense, what about the work of bearing the children, keeping house and being the very backbone of the family and home leaving the husband free to persue a career?

[Bruv]

I totally agree with a reasonable settlement and support to a wife, if she needs support.

I don't believe maintenance should be a punishment or as 'payment' for the wife's contribution to the marriage if she is financially stable.

[Betty Boop]

Bruv;1399371 wrote: I totally agree with a reasonable settlement and support to a wife, if she needs support.

I don't believe maintenance should be a punishment or as 'payment' for the wife's contribution to the marriage if she is financially stable.


The wife, once separated/divorced should be responsible for herself, unless of course as in violent relationships, the ex husband has damaged the woman physically leaving her unable to care for herself. (Just thinking of a case locally very recently where the abusive partner gouged the woman's eyes out and has therefore left her 'disabled' and unable to provide for herself). Where we should draw the line regarding mental abuse I'm not sure. The one's that need financial support, no questions asked, are the children of the couple.

[Bruv]

Exactly, any payment should keep the wife's situation on a par with her married life, not improve it at the ex's expense.

[Betty Boop]

Bruv;1399376 wrote: Exactly, any payment should keep the wife's situation on a par with her married life, not improve it at the ex's expense.


I wouldn't want any ex's money for me, but maybe that's my fierce independent streak, I just want the children to be provided for.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bruv;1399376 wrote: Exactly, any payment should keep the wife's situation on a par with her married life, not improve it at the ex's expense. But then why should the husband keep all profit from his career when the wife has been the home keeper for all those years?

Income should be split equally and any children maintained. If that falls on the husband because he's the earner, then tough.

[gmc]

Bruv;1399367 wrote: Forget the couple's religion, dismiss the mention of Sharia law, if the ex-wife is not short of cash, why should any ex husband bankroll her life?


Your question is a red herring. Forget the couple's religion and whether or not the wife had come in to money. The husband could have gone back to court to argue his case that the wife no longer needed the support. He had in fact ignored the original court order which he objected to on religious grounds - the belief that sharia law was superior to english law.

Speaking at the Appeal Court, Lord Justice Ward ruled that Dr Al-Saffar’s belief that maintenance paymets to spouses are “illigitimate or illegal according to Islamic culture” is no defence to orders made in English divorce courts.


You can't just decide a court order has no force because it is against the tenets of your religion. That is the point the judge was making and making clear.

[Oscar Namechange]

gmc;1399412 wrote: Your question is a red herring. Forget the couple's religion and whether or not the wife had come in to money. The husband could have gone back to court to argue his case that the wife no longer needed the support. He had in fact ignored the original court order which he objected to on religious grounds - the belief that sharia law was superior to english law.



You can't just decide a court order has no force because it is against the tenets of your religion. That is the point the judge was making and making clear. This Is why I don't believe that this country had any business In allowing Sharia law courts.... It's not law, It's a Tenet, nothing else.

I don't have a problem with Immigration until they Impose their tenet upon our own laws and traditions, ie Haalal butchery.

Our laws are simple, husband and wife get half of everything. Their ruling Is that the husband gets the business's and assets and profits. There Is no place for this In this day and age and In a democracy, certainly not In our country.

I really pray that British Muslim women see this court case and let the British courts resolve their settlements In future and not a Sharia law court....

[gmc]

oscar;1399418 wrote: This Is why I don't believe that this country had any business In allowing Sharia law courts.... It's not law, It's a Tenet, nothing else.

I don't have a problem with Immigration until they Impose their tenet upon our own laws and traditions, ie Haalal butchery.

Our laws are simple, husband and wife get half of everything. Their ruling Is that the husband gets the business's and assets and profits. There Is no place for this In this day and age and In a democracy, certainly not In our country.

I really pray that British Muslim women see this court case and let the British courts resolve their settlements In future and not a Sharia law court....


It's not just sharia law, we allow canon law and the jewish courts are recognised but parliamentary law is superior - otherwise there would be no Catholics getting divorced for instance and remember all those victims who agreed to let the church deal with the priests. They don't turn round and ignore a court order because it is against their religion. A muslim woman can accept the jurisdiction of a sharia court in a divorce if she wants but if she doesn't and wants a UK court then it shouldn't even be up for discussion as which court overrules which. The same day this decision was announced it didn't get a mention in any of the papers that prattle on about sharia law taking over in the UK.

How do you feel about the catholic church not being responsible for the actions of it;s priests?

Yesterday’s Appeal Court ruling strikes me as a serious blow to religious freedom | CatholicHerald.co.uk

[Oscar Namechange]

gmc;1399426 wrote:

How do you feel about the catholic church not being responsible for the actions of it;s priests?

Yesterday’s Appeal Court ruling strikes me as a serious blow to religious freedom | CatholicHerald.co.uk


If one pursues a career soaked In scripture and moral exhortation then surely that Includes following the teachings. The Church saw a choice between protecting Its own reputation, and shielding young children from ferocious abuse, and It unhesitatingly chose to protect Itself. The authority of the Church needs to move closer to the authority of Christ. The trouble Is that they still don't seem to understand the difference.

[Bruv]

gmc;1399412 wrote: Your question is a red herring. Forget the couple's religion and whether or not the wife had come in to money. The husband could have gone back to court to argue his case that the wife no longer needed the support. He had in fact ignored the original court order which he objected to on religious grounds - the belief that sharia law was superior to english law.



You can't just decide a court order has no force because it is against the tenets of your religion. That is the point the judge was making and making clear.


I think we agree, you just put it better.

It has nothing to do with Sharia law, but Sharia Law in the headline makes a better story and sells more papers.

I have never understood the objection to or maybe the understanding of Sharia law or Jewish courts in relation to the over riding British Law.

I see them like marriage counselling, just another way of reaching agreement and resolving problems informally.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bruv;1399455 wrote: I think we agree, you just put it better.

It has nothing to do with Sharia law, but Sharia Law in the headline makes a better story and sells more papers.

I have never understood the objection to or maybe the understanding of Sharia law or Jewish courts in relation to the over riding British Law.

I see them like marriage counselling, just another way of reaching agreement and resolving problems informally.


Then you are totally wrong. Depending on which country, Sharia Law can for example rule that a woman be stoned to death.

I haven't the time to write a long post so this may help:

Women’s Rights and Gender Apartheid - 2/6 - Bulletin Of The Oppression Of Women in Islam - Bulletin Of The Oppression Of Women in Islam

In the UK, Sharia courts and remember they are not law courts, they are courts based on the teachings of the Koran predominantly favour the man. Even In this country Muslim women having their divorce settled by Sharia can receive just 5% even If she's helped him run his business all her life. It's a shocking degradation of woman as second rate citizens and I don't think It has any place here In this country.

[Bruv]

oscar;1399476 wrote: Then you are totally wrong. Depending on which country, Sharia Law can for example rule that a woman be stoned to death.

I haven't the time to write a long post so this may help:

In the UK, Sharia courts and remember they are not law courts, they are courts based on the teachings of the Koran predominantly favour the man. Even In this country Muslim women having their divorce settled by Sharia can receive just 5% even If she's helped him run his business all her life. It's a shocking degradation of woman as second rate citizens and I don't think It has any place here In this country.


I fail to see what point you are arguing.

Should the Sharia court that has no jurisdiction over British law come up with a result that is not acceptable to either party, they can always fall back on British law, that is enforceable, it is a way of easing congestion in our courts for matters that could be seen as trivial.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bruv;1399483 wrote: I fail to see what point you are arguing.

Should the Sharia court that has no jurisdiction over British law come up with a result that is not acceptable to either party, they can always fall back on British law, that is enforceable, it is a way of easing congestion in our courts for matters that could be seen as trivial. I posted that link for you to see the extremes of Sharia Law worldwide. There are parts of the world where Sharia Is In the extreme ie stoning women to death and chopping thieve's hands off. Even the watered down Sharia In Western Countries such as ours puts women as second rate citizens. Have a look around London and see how many of those Muslim women are covered from head to foot and walking 20 paces behind their men. So what makes you think a young Muslim girl forced Into an arranged marriage, forced to cover her head and walk behind her husband according to the Koran, Is suddenly going to go against her family, her mosque and turn to a British Law Court? Most don't simply because they are so Indoctrinated Into Sharia.

You still seem to think Sharia Is law. It is not. It Is a tenet, a belief based on a religious belief and holy book. The same as Canon law Is not law, It has no place In a democracy where women are equal.

[Bruv]

oscar;1399484 wrote: I posted that link for you to see the extremes of Sharia Law worldwide.


I thought we were talking about Sharia law as used in the UK ?

I know about the legalities, that has little to do with anything,changing such a fundamental cultural outlook will take more than changing a few local laws.

Muslim women are competing in the Olympics with their countries approval for the first time, some will withdraw if they are not allowed to wear the hijab, while others will compete without regardless. Any changes will have to come from within, they cannot be altered by outside interference.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bruv;1399487 wrote: I thought we were talking about Sharia law as used in the UK ?

I know about the legalities, that has little to do with anything,changing such a fundamental cultural outlook will take more than changing a few local laws.

Muslim women are competing in the Olympics with their countries approval for the first time, some will withdraw if they are not allowed to wear the hijab, while others will compete without regardless. Any changes will have to come from within, they cannot be altered by outside interference.


I agree with you. The world Is changing but not fast enough for women In countries where extreme Sharia Is practised.

But the changes will not come from within when you have Muslim men such as In gmc's article who want Sharia Law courts In the UK so he gets away with nothing of what has been accumulated during marraige to his wife.

If changes come from within, It's not going to happen when Muslim men In the main do not want business and marraige suits settled by the British law courts but their own form of justice based on religious teachings that rate women second class.

I do not believe Muslim men worldwide have become more tolerant. I believe they have had to adapt due to Western Influence and pressure.

A Christian would not go Into a Muslim country and Insist her marraige was settled by Canon law yet British Muslim men want to live In the UK with all It's benefits but then use Sharia to settle divorces. Sorry but It's our country and we have law not tenets that favour one party. All the time Sharia courts are allowed to thrive In the UK, we will do nothing for British Muslim women being shafted out of what's rightfully theirs.

[Bryn Mawr]

oscar;1399490 wrote: I agree with you. The world Is changing but not fast enough for women In countries where extreme Sharia Is practised.

But the changes will not come from within when you have Muslim men such as In gmc's article who want Sharia Law courts In the UK so he gets away with nothing of what has been accumulated during marraige to his wife.

If changes come from within, It's not going to happen when Muslim men In the main do not want business and marraige suits settled by the British law courts but their own form of justice based on religious teachings that rate women second class.

I do not believe Muslim men worldwide have become more tolerant. I believe they have had to adapt due to Western Influence and pressure.

A Christian would not go Into a Muslim country and Insist her marraige was settled by Canon law yet British Muslim men want to live In the UK with all It's benefits but then use Sharia to settle divorces. Sorry but It's our country and we have law not tenets that favour one party. All the time Sharia courts are allowed to thrive In the UK, we will do nothing for British Muslim women being shafted out of what's rightfully theirs.


So now we've pull ourselves back from the excursion into the excesses of Sharia law courts in Islamic countries where Sharia law is the law of the land, can we go back to gmc's question?

How do you feel about the hundreds of Rabbinical courts (and indeed, Canon Courts) that have operated in this country for hundreds of years?

A couple more questions of my own :-

How are the Rabbinical courts any different to Sharia courts?

Given that there has never been a suggestion that Rabbinical courts ever have precedence over UK law courts, why do you suggest that Sharia courts will be any different?

[Bruv]

The changes will come from the women.

The women raise the future husbands, women are part of the problem.

When women put their feet down, in the way only women can, then there will be change.

As much as the man in the story wants to settle through Sharia law, it will never happen here........................he can have his Halal butchered meat as a concession to his faith, same as the Sikhs and turbans, Jews and Kosher, one of the freedoms that brave men have died to uphold.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bryn Mawr;1399494 wrote: So now we've pull ourselves back from the excursion into the excesses of Sharia law courts in Islamic countries where Sharia law is the law of the land, can we go back to gmc's question?

How do you feel about the hundreds of Rabbinical courts (and indeed, Canon Courts) that have operated in this country for hundreds of years?

A couple more questions of my own :-

How are the Rabbinical courts any different to Sharia courts?

Given that there has never been a suggestion that Rabbinical courts ever have precedence over UK law courts, why do you suggest that Sharia courts will be any different? I believe In any court that treats wife, husband, business partner etc etc equally. I do not think there Is a place In a democratic society where a tenet treats one In a different light.

I am not suggesting anywhere that that Rabbinical courts could ever have precedence over UK law courts nor Sharia Courts.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bruv;1399495 wrote: The changes will come from the women.

The women raise the future husbands, women are part of the problem.

When women put their feet down, in the way only women can, then there will be change.

As much as the man in the story wants to settle through Sharia law, it will never happen here........................he can have his Halal butchered meat as a concession to his faith, same as the Sikhs and turbans, Jews and Kosher, one of the freedoms that brave men have died to uphold.


What If the women are so Indoctrinated and so frightened to rebel ? Why do you think honour killings take place In this country? How many young British Muslim girls get sent to Pakistan for arranged marraiges but are too frightened to refuse?

[Bryn Mawr]

oscar;1399496 wrote: I believe In any court that treats wife, husband, business partner etc etc equally. I do not think there Is a place In a democratic society where a tenet treats one In a different light.

I am not suggesting anywhere that that Rabbinical courts could ever have precedence over UK law courts nor Sharia Courts.


OK, so what is the difference that causes you to make an outcry against the presence of Sharia courts when you ignore the fact that Rabbinical courts have been practising in this country for hundreds of years?

[Oscar Namechange]

Bryn Mawr;1399498 wrote: OK, so what is the difference that causes you to make an outcry against the presence of Sharia courts when you ignore the fact that Rabbinical courts have been practising in this country for hundreds of years? I'm not Ignoring It. My posts have been In response to gmc's link which related to Sharia Law.

If any tenet court be It Canon, Rabbinical, Sharia or any other faith court be unfairly biased towards the man, then It deserves no place In a democratic system or should take precedence over the law of the country. If any tenet court treats man and women equally, I have no problem with them.

[Bruv]

oscar;1399497 wrote: What If the women are so Indoctrinated and so frightened to rebel ? Why do you think honour killings take place In this country? How many young British Muslim girls get sent to Pakistan for arranged marraiges but are too frightened to refuse?


You are underestimating the power of women

[Oscar Namechange]

Bruv;1399500 wrote: You are underestimating the power of women
No I am not.

I have been In and out of my Muslim neighbours and best friends home nearly every day for 10 years along with their family's home. I know exactly how British Muslim women accept the faith and accept their duty Is to serve their husbands. If they rebel for want of a better word, they stand every chance of being evicted from the home, bring shame on the family, be frowned upon by their Mosque, and be cut off from the Muslim community. Many Muslim women don't know any different but British Muslim women such as my friend who lives In a Western Society Is well aware of the consequences should she rebel.

[Bryn Mawr]

oscar;1399499 wrote: I'm not Ignoring It. My posts have been In response to gmc's link which related to Sharia Law.

If any tenet court be It Canon, Rabbinical, Sharia or any other faith court be unfairly biased towards the man, then It deserves no place In a democratic system or should take precedence over the law of the country. If any tenet court treats man and women equally, I have no problem with them.


I was thinking of one of your previous posts :-

It's quite funny that you should say that Nomad.

The British people went to bed one sunday night and we woke up to find our government had slipped "Sharia" law in.

People were reading it in the press the next day, asking "What the ****???!

But it's absoluetly true.

Yep, not only do we have hate filled preacher clerics in our country but now they've got their own civil law that under the "British human Rights Act", they will probably start stoning women in the street for adultry, chopping hands off and carrying out their own "Honour" killings.

That's the loony left for you??


Nothing to do with female equality, more to do with predudice.

Given that UK law takes precedence, how will women be forced into penury never mind stoned for adultery.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bryn Mawr;1399503 wrote: I was thinking of one of your previous posts :-



Nothing to do with female equality, more to do with predudice.

Given that UK law takes precedence, how will women be forced into penury never mind stoned for adultery. Many Muslim woman within the teachings do not go against family and tradition. If they are told or raised that any dispute will be settled by a Sharia Law court, then that Is what they expect and accept. If Sharia law did not stand In the UK, all British Muslim women and their men would have no choice but to have their divorce settlements settled In a British law court which would treat the woman as equal. That In Itself could change the way some Muslim women are treated.

[Bryn Mawr]

oscar;1399506 wrote: Many Muslim woman within the teachings do not go against family and tradition. If they are told or raised that any dispute will be settled by a Sharia Law court, then that Is what they expect and accept. If Sharia law did not stand In the UK, all British Muslim women and their men would have no choice but to have their divorce settlements settled In a British law court which would treat the woman as equal. That In Itself could change the way some Muslim women are treated.


If Muslim women will not go against their family and tradition as you say then rather than go to a divorce court they would remain stuck in a dead marriage - those parts of the Muslim community that would force their women into using Sharia courts would equally block them from divorce outside of their community.

Surely the better option would be education rather than prohibition.

[Bruv]

My last word on this subject.

Women only received the right to vote in the UK in living memory.

Women received the right to non discriminatory wage rates as late as.. 1970 in the UK.

In Northern Ireland discriminatory voting was the norm until 1968.

I only mention this to put the Sharia mentality into some sort of cultural context.

Women receiving equal pay for equal work seems only right, but it took a lot of struggle to attain that goal.

One man one vote disregarded women until it was fought for and achieved.

Women in the rest of the UK could vote, yet in Northern Ireland grown men with families were barred from voting.........until the late sixties.........if they were not property owners.

It was only when the people concerned stood up and complained that change took place. Change cannot be imposed from disgruntled onlookers, it will only evolve slowly over time as the mother's of future Mullahs attitudes change.

[Bryn Mawr]

Bruv;1399534 wrote: My last word on this subject.

Women only received the right to vote in the UK in living memory.

Women received the right to non discriminatory wage rates as late as.. 1970 in the UK.

In Northern Ireland discriminatory voting was the norm until 1968.

I only mention this to put the Sharia mentality into some sort of cultural context.

Women receiving equal pay for equal work seems only right, but it took a lot of struggle to attain that goal.

One man one vote disregarded women until it was fought for and achieved.

Women in the rest of the UK could vote, yet in Northern Ireland grown men with families were barred from voting.........until the late sixties.........if they were not property owners.

It was only when the people concerned stood up and complained that change took place. Change cannot be imposed from disgruntled onlookers, it will only evolve slowly over time as the mother's of future Mullahs attitudes change.


Well said Sir.

[Betty Boop]

Bruv;1399534 wrote: My last word on this subject.

Women only received the right to vote in the UK in living memory.

Women received the right to non discriminatory wage rates as late as.. 1970 in the UK.

In Northern Ireland discriminatory voting was the norm until 1968.

I only mention this to put the Sharia mentality into some sort of cultural context.

Women receiving equal pay for equal work seems only right, but it took a lot of struggle to attain that goal.

One man one vote disregarded women until it was fought for and achieved.

Women in the rest of the UK could vote, yet in Northern Ireland grown men with families were barred from voting.........until the late sixties.........if they were not property owners.

It was only when the people concerned stood up and complained that change took place. Change cannot be imposed from disgruntled onlookers, it will only evolve slowly over time as the mother's of future Mullahs attitudes change.


You can have a second 'well said' Bruv.

As other cultures evolve and bring about equality, I hope and pray that they do a better job than Western feminism has done. We've not achieved 'equality' all round yet.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bryn Mawr;1399523 wrote: If Muslim women will not go against their family and tradition as you say then rather than go to a divorce court they would remain stuck in a dead marriage - those parts of the Muslim community that would force their women into using Sharia courts would equally block them from divorce outside of their community.

Surely the better option would be education rather than prohibition. Sometimes education Is futile when some are so Indoctrinated.

This couple have just been found guilty of murdering their daughter for ' becoming weternised '...

Shafilea Ahmed murder trial latest: Parents found guilty of killing 'Westernised' daughter jailed for life | Mail Online

Not many may go as far as killing their own children but the whole case does highlight the shame on a community If a Muslim girl should not conform. It annoys the heck out of me that they chose to live In a western country with all It's benefits and then kill their child for being Influenced by western society.

[Bruv]

OK not my very last word on the subject then........

Whatever way you want to look at it, the story as posted kinda confirms my 'last word on the subject'

Sharia Law, came second best, because the parents were jailed. UK Law won.

The parents were jailed due to their own 'educated' children's evidence. Changing attitudes won.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bruv;1399611 wrote: OK not my very last word on the subject then........

Whatever way you want to look at it, the story as posted kinda confirms my 'last word on the subject'

Sharia Law, came second best, because the parents were jailed. UK Law won.

The parents were jailed due to their own 'educated' children's evidence. Changing attitudes won. Yes, UK law won because the murder took place on UK soil.

Yet did the murder take place In the first Instance because the parents were so Indoctrinated by Sharia that they could not accept their family Indulging In western society?

So the problem goes back to Sharia Indoctrination.

[Bryn Mawr]

oscar;1399608 wrote: Sometimes education Is futile when some are so Indoctrinated.

This couple have just been found guilty of murdering their daughter for ' becoming weternised '...

Shafilea Ahmed murder trial latest: Parents found guilty of killing 'Westernised' daughter jailed for life | Mail Online

Not many may go as far as killing their own children but the whole case does highlight the shame on a community If a Muslim girl should not conform. It annoys the heck out of me that they chose to live In a western country with all It's benefits and then kill their child for being Influenced by western society.


And that sends just the right message to those communities (not just Muslim BTW) that practice honour killing - it is not acceptable here and you will get jailed for it.

[Bryn Mawr]

oscar;1399612 wrote: Yes, UK law won because the murder took place on UK soil.

Yet did the murder take place In the first Instance because the parents were so Indoctrinated by Sharia that they could not accept their family Indulging In western society?

So the problem goes back to Sharia Indoctrination.


Were honour killing a strictly Muslim phenomenon you might have a point. The fact that it occurs across the Indian sub-continent rather than across all Muslim countries shows that you are wrong.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bryn Mawr;1399617 wrote: Were honour killing a strictly Muslim phenomenon you might have a point. The fact that it occurs across the Indian sub-continent rather than across all Muslim countries shows that you are wrong.


Due in part to the spread of radical Islamist ideology, Muslim immigrants in the West are either radicalized or socialize predominantly within Muslim-only communities, and their conception of honor reflects this. Even affluent young women of Pakistani descent in the West can face the credible threat of death or severe bodily harm.

Doc's Talk: Hindu vs. Muslim Honor Killings

[Bruv]

oscar;1399620 wrote: Due in part to the spread of radical Islamist ideology, Muslim immigrants in the West are either radicalized or socialize predominantly within Muslim-only communities, and their conception of honor reflects this. Even affluent young women of Pakistani descent in the West can face the credible threat of death or severe bodily harm.

Doc's Talk: Hindu vs. Muslim Honor Killings


Similar to the struggle to bring votes to women........and men in this bastion of freedom we call the United Kingdom ?



I cannot for the life of me understand where you are going with this.

Yes.....we all agree that so called honour killings are evil.

The same as female circumcision........it is still carried out by female relatives.

Legislation will only ever have a minimum affect, until the cultural practices are altered from within.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bruv;1399624 wrote: Similar to the struggle to bring votes to women........and men in this bastion of freedom we call the United Kingdom ?



I cannot for the life of me understand where you are going with this.

Yes.....we all agree that so called honour killings are evil.

The same as female circumcision........it is still carried out by female relatives.

Legislation will only ever have a minimum affect, until the cultural practices are altered from within.


I don't Intend going anywhere with this big boy.

I have clearly stated throughout this thread that I do not believe any so called law based on a religious faith has any place In this country as related to gmc's original link re: the guy who wanted Sharia law to settle his divorce so his wife got less money.

I have not any any point suggested that honour killings are down to the Muslim faith alone.

I linked the article abut the guilty verdict today to bolster what I had claimed that young Muslim women are very often frightened to rebel. The point being that the Judge told the couple today that they put their community standing before their own daughter and that Is what I meant earlier on.

I have no problem with any faith In this country until It's followers Insist on their own law courts that have historically favoured the man.

[gmc]

Bruv;1399624 wrote: Similar to the struggle to bring votes to women........and men in this bastion of freedom we call the United Kingdom ?



I cannot for the life of me understand where you are going with this.

Yes.....we all agree that so called honour killings are evil.

The same as female circumcision........it is still carried out by female relatives.

Legislation will only ever have a minimum affect, until the cultural practices are altered from within.


Just think if the same logic was applied to had been applied to issues like black civil rights in the USA or equality legislation in this country - how about the equal pay act 1970 or the sex discrimination act 1975 do you really think we should have waited until everybody accepted that women were entitled to equal pay for doing the same job? In other words that cultural practices were altered from within and discrimination against women ceased to be the norm. Votes for women was opposed on religious grounds for many years, it's not that long ago that if a woman got married she had to give up her job and if she has children was simply fired, used to be a married woman could not open a bank account without her husbands consent.

We don't force catholics to stay married just because their church excommunicates them and one partner is devout and the other isn't. - people have a choice and when it comes down to it temporal law trumps religious law yet still some men will not accept their wife can divorce them or even their girlfriend can end a relationship, plenty of instances to show it is not just a Muslim cultural attitude many men think it OK to hit their girlfriend if provoked. No fault divorce was a big political issue not so long ago in this country as the churches argued it would end the family as we know it. This case went to court because a divorced man thought he could ignore a court order and cited religious belief as a justification. In the UK today we have churches splitting over the ordination of women priests others over allowing gay people to be ministers and god forbid a gay person wants to marry his or her partner in the sight of god never mind muslims there are plenty of christians who would have their ways imposed on us if they could. Yet all we hear about are the muslim bigots, the threat of sharia law the decline of family values and how benefit scroungers are bankrupting the country. Well if you read the daily mail, sun etc etc that is.

It's an old argument but we can't let religious bigots get away with it in the hope they will see the light. Secular Laws are there to protect the weak from the strong religious law is not.

[AnneBoleyn]

It's an old argument but we can't let religious bigots get away with it in the hope they will see the light. Secular Laws are there to protect the weak from the strong religious law is not.
Amen.

[Bruv]

gmc;1399669 wrote: Just think if the same logic was applied to had been applied to issues like black civil rights in the USA or equality legislation in this country......




I wonder if a black person in the deep south would totally agree that cultural change has kept pace with law............or a black teenager seeking work in London, for that matter.

It is the eternal question based on the 'What came first, chicken or egg'

Sometimes cultural change prompts law changes, sometimes Laws push cultural changes, seldom are they ever at the same stage.

[gmc]

Bruv;1399688 wrote: I wonder if a black person in the deep south would totally agree that cultural change has kept pace with law............or a black teenager seeking work in London, for that matter.

It is the eternal question based on the 'What came first, chicken or egg'

Sometimes cultural change prompts law changes, sometimes Laws push cultural changes, seldom are they ever at the same stage.


I wasn't suggesting that it had but I would be willing to bet it has shifted a lot more as a result of the lawa than if they hadn't been put in place. you can't wait in the hope bigots will change all you can do is try and stop the ones that shout the loudest getting their own way and bullying those who disagree in to submission. Sometimes a reasonable individual has to lay aside reason and pick up a club, it has always been so - One of the great misconceptions is that those with a liberal, tolerant point of view are soft but when push comes to shove they very seldom lose in the long run.