Insidious

[grim reaper]

Well, there you have it. A Muslim school in Derby making the teaching staff (inc. white Christians) wear the hijab.
They also made the girls sit at the back of the class, away from the boys and they were always second for food etc.
The school was shut down pending investigation and now they have 2 weeks to 'clean up' their act.

Likewise; turn to ITV tomorrow night for the investigation into the 51 mosques in the UK that were asked if they would 'marry' a 14 year old girl to an older man.
18 of the mosques interviewed stated they would.
When asked how they could do it, the reply was 'It's sharia law'.

One man said the laws of this country are for the 'kaffirs' (the unbelievers) and they follow sharia law.
When asked if it was ok to marry the 14 year old and take her to London, even though she didn't want to go, he was told....."she will get used to it".

I really don't understand how we can allow a parallel law running with British law.

After the 'trailer' for the programme, I wondered how many 14 year old girls have been married in this country?

But of course, I'm just a little Englander...actually, no, I'm a very big Englander and I'm very worried where we are going.

[mk1]

Up to 1929 a girl of 12 could be married in the UK.

[steveL]

"But of course, I'm just a little Englander...actually, no, I'm a very big Englander and I'm very worried where we are going."

Well from this, we are obviously headed in the direction where all our 9 year old daughters will be forced to marry dark skinned fundamentalists before being wisked away to foreign lands where they will be force-fed olive oil and cous-cous all day long.

And for all of those 'white Christians' out there, you should take note that it's highly unlikely that Jesus Christ was himself peachy-white but he did have some interesting things to say about tolerance which might be worth reading up on sometime.

[grim reaper]

I am surprised at YOUR response Steve.
We are talking about 14 year old girls that do not want to marry the older man. We are talking about the law of the UK.

Obviously you must think it is ok to demand a white female teacher wears the hijab?
It is a good job the main imam in Birmingham and the police disagree with your views and are investigating the scale of the scandal.

I think if you had a 14 year old daughter and an older man wanted to 'take her away' you would have a different viewpoint.

Maybe you should watch the programme tonight and witness the disdain for our country and laws by people in places of worship and education?

People in this country have been sacked for expressing their religion vis-a-vis crucifixes, words of compassion etc. Where's the level playing field?

That's the point you miss; the UK has always been receptive to other nations but when they have the right to expressions of religious freedom more than we do....that's the problem a lot of people in this country have.

[DRiddle]

Why do people who sit to the relatively extreme of the political right keep insisting that we're being subjected to Sharia Law? It's simply not true.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, Helen Grant, spoke about this in a debate in parliament earlier this year. She said that there was some confusion over the issue.

"... sharia law has no jurisdiction under the law of England and Wales and the courts do not recognise it. There is no parallel court system in this country, and we have no intention of changing the position in any part of England and Wales".

She also said she wanted to "... make it absolutely clear that they (religious councils, such as Sharia councils) are not part of the court system in this country and have no means of enforcing their decisions. If any of their decisions or recommendations are illegal or contrary to public policy – including equality policies such as the Equality Act 2010 – or national law, national law will prevail all the time, every time. That is no different from any other council or tribunal, whether or not based on sharia law".

Check Hansard, it's all there back in April this year.

As for the issues mentioned in the opening post, am I not right in stating that all of the things GR mentioned are currently being investigated by various regulatory bodies?

The idea that Britain's legal system will be 'overtaken by Sharia Law' is utter rubbish.

[grim reaper]

There's none so blind as those that do not want to see.
Why were the female teachers in the Derby school made to wear a hijab?  Sharia law. 
What did the imam say when asked if it is ok for a 14 year old to be married?  Sharia law. 

If the reporter hadn't gone 'undercover' we would never have found out what goes on in some areas on the quiet.
The so-called regulatory bodies would be impotent. 

You are not as bright as you think you are, sonny boy.
I didn't say WE were subject to Sharia law, I was relating the undercover work of the reporter.

Who are you to pontificate on where you think I sit politically? Maybe you should be up there with comrade Carl and his cronies, you certainly don't appear to brook another's opinion, unless it falls within your parameters.

My concern is for the young girls and also the way 'our' religion must be downplayed in most facets of our lives, whilst we have to celebrate others.

I had a different impression of you... I'll leave that and this subject there, as it is akin to the wind turbine argument...it can go on forever.

[DRiddle]

I had a different impression of you

Well, I'm not sure what impression you had of me (and in most respects I don't care), but I do feel you've read a few too many editions of The Daily Mail.

The idea that one piece of investigative journalism gives vindication for you to make sweeping statements about the religious beliefs and actions of around 1.6 billion people is quite worrying.

This particular 'sonny boy' may be relatively young in comparison to some, however I am old enough to be able to recall numerous pieces of investigative journalism which one would hope are in no way indicative of the overall group subject to the investigation.

There are around 1.2 billion Catholics on this rock of ours. Would a piece of investigative journalism into the alleged actions of a few Catholic priests, cause you to make the same sweeping statements about that religion as you have about a few Imams and members within the Islamic faith?

Somehow I doubt it...

[DRiddle]

And there was me thinking this is a political discussion board where people raise issues and others offer their opinion.

I'm obviously wrong.

Kipperdip wrote:

Furthermore their crimes (Catholics as well as others) against children are punished under law - the law of the land.

As are the perpetrators of any crimes revealed by the investigative journalism referred to in the opening post.

The relevant law enforcement agencies are all really all over it and will prosecute people in accordance with the law, British law.

As for me 'moving off topic', my contribution to the discussion raised in the opening post (which referenced Sharia Law) was to discuss...... Sharia Law and matters relating to that. Such as my quotes from Helen Grant speaking about.... Sharia Law and the British Legal system.

Far from me 'moving off topic... faced with uncomfortable truths', what I've actually done is remained bang on the topic. I've argued that the notion that the people who have committed any crime exposed in the documentary will, 'get off with it' because of Sharia Law, is utter nonsense.

Papers like the Daily Mail are relevant to this discussion because they constantly try to drum into people that Sharia Law will take over our countries judicial system..... it wont.

Finally, you finished your ramble by talking about the wikileaks issue. In terms of the actual focus of this thread raised by GR ... well, talking about wikileaks and matters relating to that is.... well.... "off topic". 

Come on Mr Pascoe sir, you can do better than that. 

[mk1]

If we're talking about 'responsible' and 'irresponsible' newspapers look to your beloved, extreme left wing,  'Guardian' which is now responsible for having put in jeopardy the entire western intelligence agencies' efforts to keep us safe.
Yet despite this highly dangerous situation this paper has created for us there are sections of the leftist establishment, the BBC primarily, filling the airwaves with those defending these massive breaches of security.

A few months back the same newspaper was reporting the fact that that  China was engaged in a comprehensive attack on Western firms via the internet. Cue outrage about the sneaky commies spying on everyone.
Now we find out the USA and the UK are involved in a much  much bigger spying operation where they are in fact intercepting everything anyone ever does on the internet 'just in case' it could be useful!
Good job we don't live on one of them there communist countries where they read all your mail and you have no privacy...............

[mk1]

Come on Mr Pascoe sir, you can do better than that.

UKIP actively seek out the deluded/conspiracy theory wingnuts. They pander to this group. The Daily Mail is their Bible because it reflects the anti EU/racist/homophobic/anti-BBC/anti RSPCA/anti Climate Change  outlook that dominates UKIP.

[Hartlepudlion]

Have to disagree with you on this one DR.

You may be right that theoretically UK Law takes precedence over Sharia but show me one prosecution that has been taken against under age marriage and female genital mutilation. Both against UK Law and yet known to the authorities to be widely practised by the Muslim community in the UK. The Police are aware of this and yet take no action. One can only ask why?

I think bringing in billions of Muslims into the equation is spurious at best. The post is about Muslims in the UK and UK Law.

As for the law and actuality, just look at our town

[DRiddle]

As for the law and actuality, just look at our town

That's my point though. Of course i'm not condoning the issue of forced marriage etc, my point is that people use issues like this to make sweeping statements about whole groups of people.

There's no doubt there are some people in all walks of life breaking the law. There's no doubt about that.

But to use the actions of a few to condemn everybody affiliated to that demographic of people is just plain wrong.

You're taking the extreme view of some people within a religion, and using it to pass judgement on all members of that faith.

I think it's safe to say the Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan says and does a lot of things most people would find abhorrent. But would you listen to what he says and then make sweeping judgements about all Christians?

[DRiddle]

A more interesting thing than whether I hate the Daily Mail, is whether or not the Daily Mail hates me...

http://toys.usvsth3m.com/are-you-hated-by-the-daily-mail/

Take the test... 

[mk1]

The common denominator that applies to the postings of DRL and MK1 (they usually operate in tandem) is that they are the EXTREMISTS they are the ones that equate every valid SPECIFIC instance raised involving the actions and utterances of sections of the Islamic faith in this country is automatically responded to exactly as they have done on this thread raised by GR.
GRL is admittedly a bit more literate in his mode of expression when compared to the hysterical reactions of MK1 (see his posting of 2-08 this afternoon for evidence of this).

One thing they do share is that they will always make it clear to anyone who does not follow the BBC / Guardian agenda on all things that they will pounce on you without mercy.  Of course they will pretend that they are engaging in debate but in reality they are saying, "how dare you object to the hell on earth that is being prepared for you in this country by the corrupt political classes (as aided and abetted by a biased broadcast media"?)

I will take no lectures from a man who was a member of a far right group that  was involved in fire bombing synagogues in the 60's.
How many people in Hartlepool can boast they knew Colin Jordan personally?

[DRiddle]

I'm very confused Mr Pascoe Sir, are you reading and commenting on this thread?

This one, where I've reasonably debated the issues raised in the opening post... ? As I've mentioned on this forum before (under anther nom de plume), i'm happy to debate with people on most sides of the political spectrum.

Only recently I was involved in an organised debate with (amongst others) Richard Elvin, you know him right? the Chairman of UKIPs North Easts Regional committee... potentially a UKIP MEP for the North East by 2014, if not maybe a UKIP MP for somewhere by 2015.

That's how hysterical and unwilling to engage in reasonable debate I am....    I organise debates, just like I did with your friend Mr Wilson.