Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

[Darth Wong]

Westernized Muslims don't, no - but in the Detroit area (which is one of the most heavily Muslim US areas) "honor killings" have occurred for decades among the recently immigrated. I wouldn't call it common, but it's more likely to happen with Muslims than with some other religious group.

That's a little unfair, isn't it? The Detroit area is virtually a lawless wasteland.

The US tolerates certain groups holding themselves apart and operating under slightly different rules - the Amish are one example - but that was only after a number of court cases went all the way to the Supreme Court and a large part of the basis for allowing those practices is that they do not endanger either society at large or the people involved. The US does not tolerate groups that advocate - much less demand, as does the Koran - that apostates be executed.

Nevertheless, I don't see any reason to be particularly worried about these rinky-dink "Sharia law" courts which have no legal authority unless the participants consent to abide by their rulings. This puts them on the same level as Judge Wapner.

[Terralthra]

Nevertheless, I don't see any reason to be particularly worried about these rinky-dink "Sharia law" courts which have no legal authority unless the participants consent to abide by their rulings. This puts them on the same level as Judge Wapner.

From what I understand, they already have those sorts of courts as the Sharia law arbitration mentioned in the article. I think the furor is that the Archbishop's remarks can be interpreted to mean he wants to put the force of law behind these Sharia courts in civil matters, rather than it being consensual arbitration. I could be wrong.

[Broomstick]

Westernized Muslims don't, no - but in the Detroit area (which is one of the most heavily Muslim US areas) "honor killings" have occurred for decades among the recently immigrated. I wouldn't call it common, but it's more likely to happen with Muslims than with some other religious group.

That's a little unfair, isn't it? The Detroit area is virtually a lawless wasteland.

Not the city - the western suburbs such as Dearborn, which has a signficant Arab and Muslim population (and some conflict between Muslim Arab and Christian Arab). Some of these folks are middle class to affluent, we're not talking about a ghetto wasteland.

The US tolerates certain groups holding themselves apart and operating under slightly different rules - the Amish are one example - but that was only after a number of court cases went all the way to the Supreme Court and a large part of the basis for allowing those practices is that they do not endanger either society at large or the people involved. The US does not tolerate groups that advocate - much less demand, as does the Koran - that apostates be executed.

Nevertheless, I don't see any reason to be particularly worried about these rinky-dink "Sharia law" courts which have no legal authority unless the participants consent to abide by their rulings. This puts them on the same level as Judge Wapner.

What about people who are pressured to consent to these court who might not otherwise want to? Just think of the difficulty of women under a Western system extracting themselves safely from relationships with abusive boyfriends and husbands.

In the US you can arbitrate a dispute however you want, but there is only one law and a choice of either the state or the Federal court system.

[[R_H]]

Williams 'shocked' at Sharia row (BBC)

The Archbishop of Canterbury is said to be overwhelmed by the "hostility of the response" after his call for parts of Sharia law to be recognised in the UK.

Friends of Dr Rowan Williams say he is in a state of shock and dismayed by the criticism from his own Church.

All the main political parties, secular groups and some senior Muslims have expressed dismay at his comments.

However, the Bishop of Hulme, the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, criticised the "disgraceful" treatment of Dr Williams.

Legal code

The BBC understands from sources who work on Christian-Muslim interfaith issues that Dr Williams has faced a barrage of criticism from within the Church and has been genuinely taken aback by how his words were received. Islamic Sharia law is a legal and social code designed to help Muslims live their daily lives, but it has proved controversial in the West for the extreme nature of some of its punishments.

BBC News religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott says both traditionalists and liberals in the Church have their own reasons for criticising Dr Williams.

Traditionalists maintain that English law is based on Biblical values and that no parallel system could be tolerated in the UK.

Liberal Anglicans believe giving Sharia legal status would be to the detriment of women and gay people. Among those critical of the archbishop is the chairman of evangelical Church group Reform, the Reverend Rod Thomas."The Church at the moment, and the country, needs a clear lead. The country is itself in a debate about its own sense of identity," he said.

"The moral values that we pursue are ones that we need to know are clearly grounded, and it would be most helpful for the leader of the Church to be able to explain to people how the values we cherish stem from our Christian tradition."

UKIP MEP Gerard Batten said it would be the "thin end of the wedge" and called on the archbishop to resign.

He said: "I think he's shown he is totally unfit for the role he undertakes. He's not fit to be Archbishop of Canterbury, he doesn't seem to know what his own business is, and he's not fit to sit in the House of Lords. I think he should go."

'Hysterical misrepresentations'

However, there has been some support for Dr Williams.

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said it was grateful for the archbishop's "thoughtful intervention".

The organisation added that it was saddened by the "hysterical misrepresentations" of his speech, which would only "drive a wedge between British people". Muhammed Abdul Bari, Secretary-General of the MCB, said: "The archbishop is not advocating implementation of the Islamic penal system in Britain.

"His recommendation is confined to the civil system of Sharia law, and only in accordance with English law and agreeable to established notions of human rights."

The archbishop had been "ridiculed" and "lampooned" by some people, according to Bishop Lowe.

"We have probably one of the greatest and the brightest Archbishops of Canterbury we have had for many a long day," he said.

Catherine Heseltine, from the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, said some people might be getting the wrong end of the stick.

"I'm concerned this debate is getting out of control because people hear the word Sharia and instantly scary images of beheadings," she said. Dr Williams told BBC Radio 4 on Thursday that he believed the adoption of some Sharia law in the UK seemed "unavoidable".

In an interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, Dr Williams said Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

Under English law, people may devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.

Muslim Sharia courts and Orthodox Jewish courts which already exist in the UK come into this category.

[Starglider]

Friends of Dr Rowan Williams say he is in a state of shock and dismayed by the criticism from his own Church.

Probably because he was so far up his own asshole he couldn't imagine that his moral relativist bullshit might not be shared by the rest of Western soceity.

However, the Bishop of Hulme, the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, criticised the "disgraceful" treatment of Dr Williams.

No doubr because he has a deep, barely repressed desire for criticising a member of the clergy to still be punnishable by burning at the stake.

Traditionalists maintain that English law is based on Biblical values and that no parallel system could be tolerated in the UK.

Which doesn't actually make much more sense than sharia law.

The organisation added that it was saddened by the "hysterical misrepresentations" of his speech,

As in 'oh no, this twit blew our cover and people are noticing our attempts to subvert and replace the legal system of the countries we enter, quick deny everything'.

"I'm concerned this debate is getting out of control because people hear the word Sharia and instantly scary images of beheadings,"

Which is entirely sensible, because not only does cherry picking the less violent parts make no logical sense, (modern) Islam is inherently prone to sliding into fundamentalism, literalism and ultimately violence. Calling it 'the thin end of the wedge' is entirely accurate, in that places like Saudia Arabia are clearly the ideal for these people.

In an interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, Dr Williams said Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

I find it hillarious-yet-sad how this is stated as an axiom with no support whatsoever. As if everyone else didn't have to make hard choices all the time.

[Darth Wong]

Not the city - the western suburbs such as Dearborn, which has a signficant Arab and Muslim population (and some conflict between Muslim Arab and Christian Arab). Some of these folks are middle class to affluent, we're not talking about a ghetto wasteland.

So you're saying that there have actually been a significant number of "honour killings" among recent immigrants living in middle class or affluent suburbs? Mind if I ask for a source on this?

What about people who are pressured to consent to these court who might not otherwise want to? Just think of the difficulty of women under a Western system extracting themselves safely from relationships with abusive boyfriends and husbands.

Did it ever occur to you that if communities can exert such pressure on people that they would be too terrified to refuse the arbitration, then the arbitration itself is not the real problem?

[Broomstick]

Not the city - the western suburbs such as Dearborn, which has a signficant Arab and Muslim population (and some conflict between Muslim Arab and Christian Arab). Some of these folks are middle class to affluent, we're not talking about a ghetto wasteland.

So you're saying that there have actually been a significant number of "honour killings" among recent immigrants living in middle class or affluent suburbs? Mind if I ask for a source on this?

Well, you can ask, but it would take some time to dig up news reports from 20-25 years ago when I lived in the area. I suppose I could dig up some more recent examples if you insist. Also, I'm not sure what you would call "significant". One every 10 years? One every year? One a month or a week?

It wasn't a daily affair, but honor killings - by which is usually meant an outraged father or other male relative(s) killing a girl or woman who has transgressed one of their cultural rules in order to preserve the "family honor" - certainly DO occur in Western nations. The "crime" might have been being with a non-related male unsupervised, or dating outside the cultural group, or the like. Rape victims have been abandoned by their families or worse - after all, bastions of Islamic law will put to death women who are raped, that's not under dispute.

Nor is it restricted to just the poor. At least in the US you can have affluent immigrants who are, nonetheless, not well integrated into the mainstream. Just because someone has found a way to make a lot of money doesn't mean they've become a champion of Western values.

What about people who are pressured to consent to these court who might not otherwise want to? Just think of the difficulty of women under a Western system extracting themselves safely from relationships with abusive boyfriends and husbands.

Did it ever occur to you that if communities can exert such pressure on people that they would be too terrified to refuse the arbitration, then the arbitration itself is not the real problem?

Certainly.

But such communities would be the very places I would first expect a movement towards a separate court system or a separate legal system. My first suspicion is that such communities want the separate system because they're social/peer pressures are no longer doing the job of keeping the underlings in line.

[Broomstick]

Here's a link that mentions an honor killing - it happens to be a murdered Christian man who "dared" to woo a Muslim girl, but religion, ethnicity, and perceived honor were certainly involved.

This one is from Dalls, but then these fruitcakes live in places other than just Dearborn, Michigan.

From the Detroit Free Press - the on line archive apparently doesn't go further back than 1999. My search on "honor killing" found 688 hits. Of course, it's a crude filter and incorporates stories of honor killings from elsewhere and other false positives. However, first on the list from November 2003 has a headline "Killing Family Member to Save Honor on the Rise" which would imply this problem has occurred before.

The Detroit News archive interface was not as easy to use, but it returned 183 hits on "honor killing", at least one of which involved an Italian family but hey, it's not just Muslims and Arabs who do this shit, right?

That's what I dug up with a 10-15 minute search - do you need more?

[[R_H]]

Archbishop defends Sharia remarks (BBC)

The Archbishop of Canterbury has defended his comments on Sharia law, following widespread criticism.

A statement on his website said that he "certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law".

However, at least two General Synod members have called for Dr Rowan Williams to resign following the row.

Colonel Edward Armitstead told the Daily Telegraph: "I don't think he is the man for the job."

Dr Williams had called for parts of Sharia law to be recognised in the UK, and he is said to be in a state of shock and dismayed by the criticism he has received from his own Church.

Islamic Sharia law is a legal and social code designed to help Muslims live their daily lives, but it has proved controversial in the West for the extreme nature of some of its punishments.Colonel Armitstead, a Synod member from the diocese of Bath and Wells, said Dr Williams should move to work in a university setting instead of leading the Anglican Church.

"One wants to be charitable, but I sense that he would be far happier in a university where he can kick around these sorts of ideas."

Alison Ruoff, a Synod member from London, said: "Many people, huge numbers of people, would be greatly relieved [if he resigned] because he sits on the fence over all sorts of things and we need strong, Christian, biblical leadership right now, as opposed to somebody who huffs and puffs around and vacillates from one thing to another.

"He's a very able, a brilliant scholar as a man but in terms of being a leader of the Christian community I think he's actually at the moment a disaster."

'Quite disgraceful'

Brigadier William Dobbie, a former Synod member, described the Archbishop as "a disaster, a tragic mistake".

The statement on the Archbishop's website also said Dr Williams had pointed out that "as a matter of fact, certain provisions of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law". The statement said he was "exploring ways in which reasonable accommodation might be made within existing arrangements for religious conscience".

It also said his principal aim was "to tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state".

The most senior woman priest in the Church of England, the Dean of Salisbury the Very Reverend June Osborne, said Dr Williams was right to discuss Sharia law - despite it provoking controversy.

"We can say he may have been politically naïve [but] I don't think he was.

"Our society needs to be provoked into talking about these things. I would say that all of the law of Britain has got to work within the very high standards of human rights and Christian principles."

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said it was grateful for the Archbishop's "thoughtful intervention" on the discussion of the place of Islam and Muslims in modern Britain.

A spokesman said: "The MCB observes, with some sadness, the hysterical misrepresentations of his speech which serves only to drive a wedge between British people."

The Bishop of Hulme, the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, said he was dismayed at the "knee-jerk" reaction to Dr Williams' comments.

"We have probably one of the greatest and the brightest Archbishops of Canterbury we have had for many a long day," he told BBC Radio 4.

"He is undoubtedly one of the finest minds of this nation.

"The way he has been ridiculed, lampooned and treated by some people and indeed some of the media within this process, is quite disgraceful."

[Edi]

Mike, I don't see why the situation with honor killings would be much different in the US than it is in Europe wrt recent immigrants, and those honor killings happen here too. Within the past three years, there was one highly publicized honor killing in Sweden, one attempted honor killing in Finland and there have been instances of same in other countries around here too. Usually it happens with Kurds and other Middle-Easterners or Afghans and Pakistanis. I have no idea how widespread it is among Afircan Muslim immigrants.

Broomstick's claim sounds quite plausible and realistic in light of what we know has happened elsewhere with people who fulfill the criteria she describes.

[hongi]

The Detroit News archive interface was not as easy to use, but it returned 183 hits on "honor killing", at least one of which involved an Italian family but hey, it's not just Muslims and Arabs who do this shit, right?

A few Hindu families too. Of course they should leave that shit behind, but I think it should be kept in mind that it's an extreme minority that carry out these barbaric acts.

In any case, Sharia law doesn't condone or accept honour killings and in fact Muslims see it as a non-Islamic practice, so if Sharia courts can drill that into the heads of looney immigrants, I'm all for it. Now if they could get rid of the hand cutting, the women-beating, the apostate-killing...

[[R_H]]

Carey weighs into Sharia law row (BBC)

Pressure has mounted on the Archbishop of Canterbury after his comments about Islamic Sharia law were criticised by his predecessor.

Lord Carey said Dr Rowan Williams's suggested acceptance of some Muslim laws was "a view I cannot share". But, writing in the News of the World, he said Dr Williams should not be forced to quit. Dr Williams has insisted he was not advocating a parallel set of laws, but has faced calls for his resignation. Supporters have described the reaction to his comments as "hysterical".

Dr Williams sparked a major row after saying, in a BBC Radio 4 interview last week, that the adoption of parts of the law was "unavoidable" in Britain. Two General Synod members have urged him to quit and he was heckled while leaving a church service.

'Great leader'

The archbishop is said to be shocked by the reaction to his comments and said on his website he "certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law". But the criticism mounted as Lord Carey warned in an article for the News of the World: "He has in my opinion overstated the case for accommodating Islamic legal codes.
"His conclusion that Britain will eventually have to concede some place in law for aspects of Sharia is a view I cannot share. "There can be no exceptions to the laws of our land which have been so painfully honed by the struggle for democracy and human rights. "His acceptance of some Muslim laws within British law would be disastrous for the nation."

But he said Dr Williams should not be forced to quit over his remarks, adding: "He is a great leader in the Anglican tradition and he has a very important role to play in the Church."

BBC News religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott said it was "pretty inconceivable" that Dr Williams would resign.

'Thoughtful intervention'

Dr Williams did not refer to the issue while preaching at a memorial service on Saturday. He is thought likely to do so during his address to the General Synod in London on Monday. In what was his first public appearance since the row erupted, he was greeted with a mixture of applause, boos and camera flash bulbs as he left the service in Great St Mary's Church, Cambridge.

Dr Williams was offered support by the Right Reverend George Cassidy, Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, who branded the reaction "hysterical" and said the archbishop was simply trying to take forward a serious public debate.

Meanwhile, the Very Reverend Colin Slee, Dean of Southwark Cathedral, said the archbishop's advisors were not up to the job. He was also defended by the most senior woman priest in the Church of England, the Dean of Salisbury the Very Reverend June Osborne, who said: "Our society needs to be provoked into talking about these things."

And the Muslim Council of Britain welcomed his "thoughtful intervention" on the discussion of the place of Islam and Muslims in modern Britain. But Col Edward Armitstead, a Synod member from the diocese of Bath and Wells, was among those calling for Dr Williams to step down. He told the Daily Telegraph: "I don't think he is the man for the job."

'Tragic mistake'

Alison Ruoff, a Synod member from London, said: "He's very able; a brilliant scholar as a man, but in terms of being a leader of the Christian community I think he's actually at the moment a disaster." Brig William Dobbie, a former Synod member, described the archbishop as "a disaster, a tragic mistake".

Sharia law is a legal and social code designed to help Muslims live their daily lives, but it has proved controversial in the West for the extreme nature of some of its punishments.

The statement on the archbishop's website said Dr Williams pointed out that "as a matter of fact, certain provisions of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law". The statement said he was "exploring ways in which reasonable accommodation might be made within existing arrangements for religious conscience". It also said his principal aim was "to tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state".

Catholic leader Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor said he was "saddened" by the way the archbishop's comments had been misunderstood. "I think he did raise a point of considerable interest and concern at the moment, namely, the rights of a religious groups within secular state. "Everyone in Britain must obey the law and therefore the question of how one can be a loyal British citizen and a faithful member of a religious group is a very pertinent question," he told BBC Radio 4's Sunday programme.

[Androsphinx]

Didn't seem worth making a separate thread for:
Torygraph

Minister warns of inbreeding risk for Muslims

A government minister has issued a warning over inbreeding among Britain's immigrant population, saying that it is creating a wave of birth defects, a newspaper has reported.

Environment minister Phil Woolas, speaking in the Sunday Times, described the culture of arranged marriages - which often pairs up first cousins as couples - among British Muslims as the "elephant in the room".

The former race relations minister said that "if you have a child with your cousin the likelihood is that there will be a genetic problem".

"The issue we need to debate is first cousin marriages, whereby a lot of arranged marriages are with first cousins, and that produces lots of genetic problems in terms of disability [in children]," he went on.

Medical experts supported his views over the weekend.

Mr Woolas made clear that the practice was not universal among Muslims, but instead mainly took place in families from rural areas in Pakistan.

Among those families, however, up to half of all marriages are between first cousins.

Research suggests that children born to those families are at considerably increased risk of genetic disorders. One in three children born with a genetic illness is of Pakistani origin, despite only accounting for 3% of births overall.

Mr Woolas' statement comes at a time of heightened tension for British Muslims in the wake of comments by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who has been quoted as saying that sharia law will "inevitably" be brought in to the British courts.

The suggestion has created a storm of criticism for the head of the Anglican church.

[Master of Ossus]

Law is far from my field, but aren't legal precedents worth a bit more in the US than here? After all, our precedents go back much further, all the way to the dark ages in fact. So it isn't really suprising that they reflect more old-fashioned views. I mean, precedents aside, we still have a bunch of ancient laws on the books that nobody ever bothered removing.

Didn't the US just adopt English common law after they gained independence, though? Also, the law is mostly statutory, by now. Parliament has no excuse for not superseding these old findings.

[Rye]

So you're saying that there have actually been a significant number of "honour killings" among recent immigrants living in middle class or affluent suburbs? Mind if I ask for a source on this?

There's been a fair few here. According to the beeb, there's been about 100 in the past 10 years (well, prior to 2004). Also according to the beeb, there's about 12 a year, typically from middle eastern and south asian backgrounds. Closer to me, "down the road" as it were, there were two particularly brutal ones fairly recently: one in Cheadle, where the guy beat them to death, and one in Accrington, where the guy burned his wife and daughters. The only survivor was their terminally ill son, who was in hospital at the tiem and died shortly after.

[Broomstick]

Law is far from my field, but aren't legal precedents worth a bit more in the US than here? After all, our precedents go back much further, all the way to the dark ages in fact. So it isn't really suprising that they reflect more old-fashioned views. I mean, precedents aside, we still have a bunch of ancient laws on the books that nobody ever bothered removing.

Didn't the US just adopt English common law after they gained independence, though? Also, the law is mostly statutory, by now. Parliament has no excuse for not superseding these old findings.

Actually, I believe Louisiana's state law is based on the French code du civil.

For the most part our law is based on English common law, but between the Constitution and statutes passed post-revolution it's diverged a bit in some areas. Precedent is very important.... but it can and has been overturned.

[[R_H]]

snip

Research suggests that children born to those families are at considerably increased risk of genetic disorders. One in three children born with a genetic illness is of Pakistani origin, despite only accounting for 3% of births overall.

Wow. That's astounding. Does the incidence of birth defects increase with subsequent marriage to first cousins (I'm guessing yes)? I wonder what the response from the community will be.

[Androsphinx]

snip

Research suggests that children born to those families are at considerably increased risk of genetic disorders. One in three children born with a genetic illness is of Pakistani origin, despite only accounting for 3% of births overall.

Wow. That's astounding. Does the incidence of birth defects increase with subsequent marriage to first cousins (I'm guessing yes)? I wonder what the response from the community will be.

I have far too much work to be online, but about what you'd expect (BBC) (not the full article, which pretty much then repeats the one above)

A minister who warned about birth defects among children of first cousin marriages in Britain's Asian community has sparked anger among critics.

Phil Woolas said health workers were aware such marriages were creating increased risk of genetic problems.

The claims infuriated the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC) which called on the prime minister to "sack him".

MPAC spokesman Asghar Bukhari said Mr Woolas' comments "verged on Islamophobia".

Mr Woolas, an environment minister who represents ethnically-diverse Oldham East and Saddleworth, risked sparking a major row after warning the issue was "the elephant in the room", Mr Bukhari said.

[[R_H]]

I have far too much work to be online, but about what you'd expect (BBC) (not the full article, which pretty much then repeats the one above)

A minister who warned about birth defects among children of first cousin marriages in Britain's Asian community has sparked anger among critics.

Phil Woolas said health workers were aware such marriages were creating increased risk of genetic problems.

The claims infuriated the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC) which called on the prime minister to "sack him".

MPAC spokesman Asghar Bukhari said Mr Woolas' comments "verged on Islamophobia".

Mr Woolas, an environment minister who represents ethnically-diverse Oldham East and Saddleworth, risked sparking a major row after warning the issue was "the elephant in the room", Mr Bukhari said.

What a bunch of dumb shits. He specifically says it's a fucking cultural problem, and then the MPAC douches claims it's "verging on Islamophobia". The guy's pointing out the obvious ie, marrying your fucking cousin isn't a good idea, but they're perfectly content with ignoring that 3% of the births are responsible for 33% of birth defects. Wow.

[Broomstick]

snip

Research suggests that children born to those families are at considerably increased risk of genetic disorders. One in three children born with a genetic illness is of Pakistani origin, despite only accounting for 3% of births overall.

Wow. That's astounding. Does the incidence of birth defects increase with subsequent marriage to first cousins (I'm guessing yes)? I wonder what the response from the community will be.

The first cross between first cousins only slightly elevates the risk in a normally diverse population - it is precisely the repeated first cousin marriages that give rise to the sort of elevated risk described in the article. These people aren't just marrying first cousins in the UK, they've been marrying first cousins for generations.

[[R_H]]

More from Williams (BBC)

Archbishop defends Sharia remarks


The Archbishop of Canterbury has defended his decision to speak on Sharia law, saying it is right to air the concerns of faith communities. Dr Rowan Williams told the general synod although he felt some remarks had been taken out of context, he took responsibility for any confusion.

He was clarifying earlier comments in which he implied adopting aspects of Sharia in the UK was "unavoidable". Prime Minister Gordon Brown has praised Dr Williams' "great integrity".

Dr Williams told clergy at the Church of England synod in Westminster he believed "some of what has been heard is a very long way indeed from what was actually said". "But I must of course take responsibility for any unclarity in either that text or in the radio interview and for any misleading choice of words that's helped to cause distress or misunderstanding among the public at large, and especially among my fellow Christians.''

He went on to say he did not regret addressing the issue of Sharia law.
"I believe quite strongly that it is not inappropriate for a pastor of the Church of England to address issues about the perceived concerns of other religious communities, and to try and bring them into better public focus."


Liberties and consciences

Part of the "burden and the privilege of being the Church" in the UK meant the clergy needed "some coherent voice on behalf of all the faith communities living here", he said. He added: "If we can attempt to speak for the liberties and consciences of others in this country - as well as our own - we shall, I believe, be doing something we as a church are called to do in Christ's name: witnessing to his Lordship, not compromising it. "

Dr Williams sparked a major row after saying, in a BBC Radio 4 interview last week, that the adoption of parts of Sharia law was "unavoidable" in Britain. He has insisted he was not advocating a parallel set of laws, but has faced calls for his resignation. Earlier the prime minister's spokesman said Mr Brown understood "the difficulties" the archbishop was facing and paid tribute to Dr Williams's "dedication to public and community service".

Mr Brown believed religious law should be subservient to UK law, he added.

"I believe quite strongly that it is not inappropriate for a pastor of the Church of England to address issues about the perceived concerns of other religious communities, and to try and bring them into better public focus."

I doubt the Muslim religious community needs help bringing something into public focus, although their clergy might have trouble doing so coherently.

[Tanasinn]

Religious law of any sort has no place in any legal system. All nations should strive to base their laws upon reason, not sky-man beliefs. This isn't the dark ages.

[Darth Wong]

So you're saying that there have actually been a significant number of "honour killings" among recent immigrants living in middle class or affluent suburbs? Mind if I ask for a source on this?

There's been a fair few here. According to the beeb, there's been about 100 in the past 10 years (well, prior to 2004). Also according to the beeb, there's about 12 a year, typically from middle eastern and south asian backgrounds. Closer to me, "down the road" as it were, there were two particularly brutal ones fairly recently: one in Cheadle, where the guy beat them to death, and one in Accrington, where the guy burned his wife and daughters. The only survivor was their terminally ill son, who was in hospital at the tiem and died shortly after.

That's interesting and a bit surprising, but it's also a red-herring to the point under discussion: one which I only allowed to go briefly unchallenged because I was curious about the magnitude of the problem. The fact is that the "should we let Muslims set up Sharia-based arbitration courts like the Jews already have" argument is not in any way related to the question of whether a lot of Muslims are murderous scum. The kind of scumbags who commit "honour killings" don't give a flying fuck what we decide to allow in law, do they?

[Justforfun000]

What a bunch of dumb shits. He specifically says it's a fucking cultural problem, and then the MPAC douches claims it's "verging on Islamophobia". The guy's pointing out the obvious ie, marrying your fucking cousin isn't a good idea, but they're perfectly content with ignoring that 3% of the births are responsible for 33% of birth defects. Wow.

I know eh? God I hate idiots like this. If I was the minister I'd probably BE sacked, because I'd want to speak out and say "You know what? This is a scientific fact, a medical issue, and I don't give a damn if you're a Muslim or a Zoroastrian. If you screw genetically similar relatives, you WILL statistically raise the likelihood of birth defects. Take your 'Islamaphobia' and fuck yourself up the ass with it.!"

THAT'S what these ministers should be able to say instead of pussyfooting around the issue with bullshit sentiments like "we have to be very aware of the sensitivities".

Fuck I'm getting tired of these whiners and their 'Islamaphobia' rants.

[Sidewinder]

Fuck I'm getting tired of these whiners and their 'Islamaphobia' rants.

Considering what Islamic terrorists have done, planned to do, and are probably doing in Europe, the white people probably think the Islamophobia is damn well justified. If Muslims don't want the white people-- who still outnumber them, and still control the military and the police-- to be Islamophobes, they'll have to work hard to present themselves as good, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, i.e., NOT the same as those guys who murdered an artist in the Netherlands, rioted in France, bombed trains in Spain, bombed buses in Britain, plotted to bomb US military bases in Germany, commit honor killings in various nations...