Sharia Courts given official status in England

! This post hasn't been updated in over a year. A lot can change in a year including my opinion and the amount of naughty words I use. There's a good chance that there's something in what's written below that someone will find objectionable. That's fine, if I tried to please everybody all of the time then I'd be a Lib Dem (remember them?) and I'm certainly not one of those. The point is, I'm not the kind of person to try and alter history in case I said something in the past that someone can use against me in the future but just remember that the person I was then isn't the person I am now nor the person I'll be in a year's time.

I haven’t seen this mentioned on the news (surprise, surprise) but according to the UKIP website, five Sharia courts are now allowed to have their judgements enforced by the High Court or a County Court.

Muslims have been calling for their barbaric Sharia Law to be given equal status to English law for years and now it looks like the British government is making that possible for them. Under Sharia Law it is possible to have multiple wives, to beat and rape women and to kill non-believers. Luckily they are covered by criminal law in England and the Sharia courts are only allowed to pass judgement on civil cases. For now.

This will no doubt be of great comfort to Anjem Choudary who preaches that muslims should have lots of babies so that they can turn the country into an Islamic state from the inside.

Here’s a quote from the delightful Mr Choudary:

We do not integrate into Christianity. We will ensure that one day you will integrate into the Sharia Islamic law. Our eyes are on Downing Street

Racial and religious segregation has been happening for years under the guise of multiculturalism and positive discrimination and now we are paying the price. We are fighting a losing battle against these racist shitheads who move to England, refuse to get a job, refuse to speak English, refuse to integrate into our own society and then preach their racist filth to young impressionable muslims.

There should be no Sharia Law, no muslim special advisors in the British government, no muslim-only groups and forums – all they are doing is driving an even bigger wedge between the natives of this country and muslim minority. If a muslim moves to England then they should expect – and be forced – to become English, to integrate with our society to adopt our culture and to understand that their alien religion is theirs, not ours. Anyone preaching anything to the contrary should be put on the first plane to Durkastan and banned from re-entering the country.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , ,


  1. jerry (78 comments) says:

    It isnt that easy to integrate people,how would you feel if you were to move to a diffrent country and had to give up traditions like christmas?Ofcourse there are always extremists that move to england(europe for that matter)but this is a free speech zone so there is little you can do if they arent preaching the killing of people.And there should be at least a small amount of effort dedicated to integrating the normal ones to western(english etc.)society but if you push them to hard,you might loose them to the extremists.

  2. axel (1214 comments) says:

    I beleive this is an england only thing, you have some form of official pre court arbitration and the sharia version is just an addition to it, i beleive.

    Maybe some native englandshiremen could elucidate?

  3. Andi (82 comments) says:

    This shouldn’t happen. While I accept the point from Jerry that if we moved, we might have to give up our traditions, they are then making no bigger sacrifice moving here than they ask of us to move there. This is, at the end of the day, our country. If they want to move here, fine: they play by our rules if they do. If they can’t deal with that, then they know where the airports are…

  4. Andi (82 comments) says:

    Update: It’s mentioned in The Times ( I haven’t seen it anywhere else though.

  5. Charlie Marks (365 comments) says:

    Jewish people are allowed to submit themselves to their own courts in civil matters. So, I don’t see a problem with this if it’s just about resolving disputes in a peacable manner. Seems a bit like the anti-Irish stories that used to fill the papers in the 70s and 80s – only now the wars are in Muslim countries…

    As for your vicious characterisation of Muslims, Wonko, can I tell you that a few years ago I was acquainted with an asylum seeker from Iraq – the first Muslim person I got to know really well. He could not get a job because the govt forbids it – he wanted to work. He didn’t much want to come to live here, but seeing as how his country was being invaded at the time… He didn’t blame ordinary English people, knowing the great majority opposed the war. He learned the language, had gay friends and Chistian friends, took part in social activities.

    Most Muslims in England originate from Pakistan, a former British colony, where the UK government has propped up a brutal military dictator and is now silent on the planned US invasion. No doubt the terror threat would be lessened if the UK govt sided with the new democratic govt and brought our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan…

  6. wonkotsane (1133 comments) says:

    What vicious characterisation of muslims?

    The difference between Jewish courts and Sharia courts is that, to the best of my knowledge, there isn’t a vocal and forceful movement to have Jewish law established alongside and then over and above English law and Jewish law doesn’t allow beatings, stonings and other bararic acts of violence against women.

  7. axel (1214 comments) says:

    I think we are all misunderstanding things here, I think i have the best excuse, as i live in a different country, with a different legal system.

    As far as I see it, under cases of civil law, in england there is an option to go to pre trial arbitration. Everyone has access to this. The jews have their own wee variant and now the muslims will get their own wee variant.

    If they are unhappy with the results, they as indeed anyone else can too, can reject the decision of this comittee and go for a full court case with lawyers and men in wigs.

    Is that it? Or am i missing something?

  8. Andi (82 comments) says:

    It works like this: If there is a civil matter that would otherwise go to the courts, the parties can instead choose to go to a “tribunal” as defined by the Arbitration Act 1996, and Sharia courts are defined as such tribunals by the act. If you choose to go to such a tribunal instead of a court, you accept that the judgement of the tribunal is legally enforcible, and the courts will back the decision of the tribunal.

    The problem with this is that Sharia law allows for all sorts of barbaric punishments, against non-believers and women in particular. If this was some pre-trial arbitration service (along the lines of ACAS, perhaps) then it wouldn’t be so bad. The issue is that these “courts” now have the power to pass sentence, and such sentences could contravene English law; indeed there have been cases of Sharia courts passing sentences that have resulted in the deaths of individuals to “save family honour”.

    Further to this of course is the issue that, eventually, Muslims will more than likely want to put Sharia law on an equal footing to English law, giving them jurisdiction over criminal as well as civil matters. How this would work with English law, and which legal system would be used, are entirely open subjects.

    The fact is that this is England. If you want some kind of pre-trial arbitration, then fine. You don’t need a court system to do that. If you want your own legal system then no: you live in our country, you work and operate under our legal system. If that grates with you, then pack your bags and clear off.

  9. axel (1214 comments) says:

    maybe i’m just being stupid here (roars from the crowd) but…..

    The way the legal system works is, if some judge screws up on a legal point, you appeal, all the way up to the Lords, until either precedent is set or the law is upheld.

    I’m sure the jewish courts follow the law of the land and if the sharia courts contravened the law, it would be appealed and their system would be laughed at by anyone who can read and by those who look at the pictures in the Daily Mail.

    Also, does criminal law not have precedence over civil law?

  10. William Gruff (138 comments) says:

    I wouldn’t describe your description as ‘vicious’, although it was a trifle heavy handed. Charley isn’t a bright spark (he’s a match head short of a dead fag end) and his comments shouldn’t be given too much weight, as I’m certain you’re aware. What differentiates you is that while yours is an eminently readable blog his is about as cutting as a DC Thomson edition of Viz.

    As a paid up lickspittle of George Galloway’s, poor old brain-dead Charley cannot do much other than vaingloriously to attempt to castigate those who oppose his masters. Put yourself in the position of a middle-aged man who goes to sleep at night knowing that only Dirty European Socialist is lower in the evolutionary scale than he. Can’t you find it in your heart to forgive the poor deluded fool?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.