It is currently 04/11/25 5:41 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next   Page 2 of 6   [ 133 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/04/09 5:18 am • # 26 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
It IS a pain in the ass ~ oskar, if you are intent on keeping a full copy of the Afghan constitution, it should probably be moved to the Links and Resources board ~ with your permission, I'd like to move it there ~

AQ, please refresh my memory ~ didn't the UK accept Sharia law as governing the Islamists? ~ does it replace UK law for those of the Islamists residing in the UK?

Sooz


Top
  
PostPosted: 04/04/09 5:23 am • # 27 
sooz08 wrote:
It IS a pain in the ass ~ oskar, if you are intent on keeping a full copy of the Afghan constitution, it should probably be moved to the Links and Resources board ~ with your permission, I'd like to move it there ~

AQ, please refresh my memory ~ didn't the UK accept Sharia law as governing the Islamists? ~ does it replace UK law for those of the Islamists residing in the UK?

Sooz
Sooz: No. It was proposed for "family disputes", but was turned down.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/04/09 5:27 am • # 28 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
with your permission, I'd like to move it there

No problem.


Top
  
PostPosted: 04/04/09 5:33 am • # 29 
Sooz: Just to clarify (this is the most up-to-date piece I can find):

Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Principles of sharia law could play a role in some parts of the legal system, the Lord Chief Justice has said.

Lord Phillips, the most senior judge in England and Wales, said there was no reason sharia law's principles could not be used in mediation.

However, he said this would still be subject to the "jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts".

Sharia is a set of principles which govern the way many Muslims believe they should live their life.

The Archbishop of Canterbury prompted controversy when he said use of certain aspects of the law "seems unavoidable".

" English common law already allows us to go to mediation to whichever third party we wish "
Inayat Bunglawala
Muslim Council of Britain
In a speech at the East London Muslim Centre in Whitechapel, Lord Phillips said that sharia suffered from "widespread misunderstanding".

Lord Phillips said: "There is no reason why sharia principles, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution.

"It must be recognised, however, that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales."

Severe physical punishments such as flogging, stoning and the cutting off of hands would not be acceptable, he said.

He added: "There can be no question of such courts sitting in this country, or such sanctions being applied here.

"So far as the law is concerned, those who live in this country are governed by English and Welsh law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts."

'Misunderstood'

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, had been misunderstood when it was reported in February that he said British Muslims could be governed by sharia law, the judge said.

HAVE YOUR SAY We mustn't allow there to be different laws for different sections of society Tina, Manchester, UK

Dr Williams suggested that sharia could play a role in "aspects of marital law, the regulation of financial transactions and authorised structures of mediation and conflict resolution".

Lord Phillips said: "It was not very radical to advocate embracing sharia law in the context of family disputes, for example, and our system already goes a long way towards accommodating the archbishop's suggestion.

"It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law."

Inayat Bunglawala from the Muslim Council of Britain told BBC News that sharia law applied only to civil matters.

He said: "I think it's important to clarify that English common law already allows us to go to mediation to whichever third party we wish. "So that is why you have sharia council, that is why you have Jewish courts. It is a truly voluntary arrangement.

"There is no parallel legal system. This system cannot override English common law system at all."



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/04/09 5:35 am • # 30 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Thanks, AQ ~

Thanks, oskar ~ after I move it, I will note in your post that it has been moved and give a link to it ~

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/04/09 5:37 am • # 31 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
AQ, please refresh my memory ~ didn't the UK accept Sharia law as governing the Islamists? ~ does it replace UK law for those of the Islamists residing in the UK?

Sooz: No. It was proposed for "family disputes", but was turned down.


Same thing in Canada except it all happened in a rather oddball way and with unintended consequences.
The Muslim community in Ontario asked the Ontario government for Sharia Law to apply in domestic situations (ie. divorce, etc). The Ontario government replied that they would consider it but thatif they accepted this there was no way any of the rulings of the Sharia Court could contravene any of the laws of Canada at any level.
Well, the B'Nai Brith weighed in mightily and the Ontario government decided against Sharia Courts. At the same time though, they included all forms of religious courts. Up until then the Jewish community had their religious courts of arbitration which they have now obviously lost.


Top
  
PostPosted: 04/04/09 5:43 am • # 32 

Thanks, sooz and oskar.

In doing research for this I saw a lot of articles talking about many different countries, including the United States considering the same thing, allowing sharia law to govern the Islamists. It seems to be a worldwide effort by them.



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/04/09 5:48 am • # 33 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Thanks, oskar ~ after I move it, I will note in your post that it has been moved and give a link to it ~

Sooz


No need to do that but I appreciate it.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/04/09 6:12 am • # 34 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Maybe this warrants a thread of its own, but I have VERY mixed emotions about religious law trumping CIVIL OR CRIMINAL law ~ IMO, everyone should be subject to the same country/city/municipality/town/village/etc civil and criminal laws where they reside ~ if the religious want to go beyond civil/criminal law, fine ~ but the religious laws should NOT take precedence over the civil/criminal laws IMO ~ and no country/city/municipality/town/village/etc should be required to maintain two separate sets of laws for its residents/citizens ~

Sooz


Top
  
PostPosted: 04/04/09 6:14 am • # 35 
I agree totally.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/04/09 6:17 am • # 36 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
So do I.
Are there Jewish "courts" in the US?

The term "court" is used very loosely in this context. They are more like religious arbitrators.


Top
  
PostPosted: 04/04/09 6:19 am • # 37 
Is that a joke oskar?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/04/09 6:22 am • # 38 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Not at all. There were in Canada until the incident in # 30.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/04/09 6:23 am • # 39 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Your post came before my edit.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/04/09 6:35 am • # 40 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Not that I'm aware of, oskar ~ the very religious [Orthodox and above] Jews will follow various religious precepts and "laws" ~ but they are still subject to local laws and ordinances ~

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/04/09 6:47 am • # 41 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
I was under the impression that there were Rabinnical Courts The could be asked to intervene in domestic/civil situations.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/04/09 7:12 am • # 42 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Rabbis interpret the religious precepts and "laws" and counsel congregants, same as pastors and priests do ~ and the rabbis may "intervene in domestic/civil situations", specifically for the deeply religious, the same way that pastors/priests might do so ~ but that is on a religious level, and I'm 99.99999% sure that intervention does NOT trump local laws and ordinances ~

Sooz


Top
  
PostPosted: 04/04/09 7:18 am • # 43 
Of course it doesn't, sooz. It's like when families go to testify during the sentencing phase of a trial. It doesn't make the law or change the law or trump the law. It is simply considered along with everything else.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/05/09 11:08 pm • # 44 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said he was informed Sunday by his counterpart in Afghanistan that a new family law, which critics say legalizes marital rape, has been halted and will be revised.

"A decision was made to halt this legislation, and at the same time send this package back to the minister of Justice so that the minister of Justice can put together a package that will abide, of course, by the constitution of Afghanistan and at the same time respect the rights of individuals - of course, the rights of women," Cannon said.

The decision was made after a Saturday cabinet meeting attended by Afghan Foreign Affairs Minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta and President Hamid Karzai, Cannon said, adding he believes the Afghan law has now been halted.

The law gives husbands the right to sex every fourth night unless the wife is ill. It only affects Shia Muslims, who make up about 15 per cent of Afghanistan's population.

Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Peter Kent said in an earlier interview on Sunday that Canada expects the Afghan government to revise the new family law.

"We expect the law to be changed [and] certainly not the provisions that concern us to be enacted," Kent said in an interview with CBC News: Sunday.

The minister said it's premature to talk about consequences or a stronger response to what he called an "offensive" law, other than the reaction world leaders have already delivered.

"Canada has made it clear that it expects Afghanistan to fulfill its international treaty obligations, particularly with respect to human rights and the rights of women and girls," Kent said.

"This isn't a time for Canada to threaten to pull out, and we don't believe that it necessary to pull out," he added.

At Saturday's NATO summit in Strasbourg, France, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the equality of men and women "goes to the heart" of Canada's value system, its engagement in Afghanistan and its opposition to the Taliban.

He also indicated that NATO countries involved in Afghanistan want more than just a review of the controversial legislation, as Karzai promised on Saturday.

"If I can be blunt here, I'm not sure if the alliance is prepared to accept simply soothing reassurances," Harper said.

It has been reported that Karzai supported the legislation to curry favour with traditional Afghans ahead of the country's Aug. 20 elections. The new law, for example, also makes it illegal for women to leave their homes without the permission of their husbands.

U.S. President Barack Obama described the legislation as "abhorrent."

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said his country "will not compromise" in the fight to uphold human rights in Afghanistan.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel told the Bild am Sonntag newspaper the law "fundamentally violates the equal rights of men and women and does not reflect our ideals."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/04/05/afghanistan-family-law.html



Top
  
PostPosted: 04/06/09 1:54 pm • # 45 
Does anyone really believe this stuff hasn't happened and won't because of the "Constitution"?

Read about a truly historic woman. Maybe we should make her President of Afghanistan

http://www.malalaijoya.com/index1024.htm


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/06/09 9:41 pm • # 46 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
Murder is illegal here. Has murder been eliminated?


Top
  
PostPosted: 04/06/09 9:45 pm • # 47 
oskar576 wrote:
Murder is illegal here. Has murder been eliminated?
I'm guessing that murder rates are lower than they would be if murder were legal. Image


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/06/09 9:48 pm • # 48 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
I would guess the same. Most people are law-abiding most of the time, I should think.


Top
  
PostPosted: 04/06/09 9:52 pm • # 49 

No, of course not. Is it condoned by the government here? Does our government want to condone it? Does our government see nothing wrong with it?

Since part of the argument for us staying is for the women, I think the thoughts of the woman in the link I gave previously are very important. She says the women in Afghanistan "need support, not an invasion"

Our good "friends" in Pakistan kissed the asses of the Taliban so much that they freely flogged a teenage girl in Public. We count on a government like that to help us?

I say we find a way to support brave women like the one in the article I posted the link to and the children and let the men just fight it out with each other. They think their women are worthless. We can see the men there are the worthless ones.



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 04/06/09 9:57 pm • # 50 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
The culture won't change overnight. But there has to be a start somewhere and though this is but one small step, it is a step,


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next   Page 2 of 6   [ 133 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.