Nice try, stevenlmeyer.

Taking sentences out of context is the refuge of a scoundrel.

Manipulating them as well. Just weak.

Your first example of what you claim is a contradiction, relies upon your adding your own assumption.

>>"The expectation that only minor [criminal? That's what the context of your reply suggests] cases will be handled in future should also be seen as a plus."<<

Did you notice that? The interpolation "criminal" was a) necessary to make your point and b) inserted by you.

Pretty low, eh?

Your second example is, if anything, even more scurrilous.

My opinion "But for domestic violence, it should be the court over the tribunal, every time.", stands.

You chose to contrast it with my comment on the examples you provided in the link. These do not constitute my opinion on where domestic violence accusations of a criminal nature should be determined, they are observations on the decisions made by the UK police, as evidenced by the words "I guess..." and "it would appear".

Thus your triumphant squeak of >>So it's not the court "every time"<< is just plain muddle-headed.

And your corollary is also highly questionable, too.

>>Note that in the case of domestic violence there is an INHERENT criminal element<<

Not necessarily. Let me refer you to...

www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/Conference%20papers/Exp-horiz/Moore.pdf

...that includes the sentence "ADVOs granted under the court’s civil jurisdiction are regarded as important mechanisms for individuals to gain protection from criminal and non-criminal forms of family violence."

In short, your glee is somewhat suspect, stevenlmeyer.

You accuse me of avoiding the topic, yet happily spend an entire post trying to somehow discredit my contributions.

Singularly unsuccessfully, wouldn't you say?

As for your final attempt to divert attention from your personal problems...

>>I guess you find it easier to demonise critics as "Mozzie bashers" than address real issues<<

...you still haven't explained why you gave this thread the title "Sharia Law in Britain", when...

>>this is NOT about Islam or sharia<<

Your words. In context.

Have a great day.

LOL Pericles

You are tying yourself into knots.

I quoted the following:

"Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” CRIMINAL cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them..."

As you pointed out, I capitalised the word "criminal."

You respond:

"The expectation that only minor cases will be handled in future should also be seen as a plus."

Criminal cases aside, there is nothing in the quoted text, or in the linked article, which leads to such a conclusion. In fact given the nature of the cases being handled – which includes the disposition of wills and divorce matters – the cases are ANYTHING BUT MINOR.

The only way I could make sense of your sentence was to assume you meant minor criminal cases. Those were the only "minor" matters mentioned in the article if we allow "smaller" as a rough synonym for "minor."

But, maybe I should have accepted that this sentence of yours, along with many others, is simply devoid of sense.

However, whichever way you cut it, the expectation appears to be that the tribunals will handle "smaller" or "minor" CRIMINAL cases.

Do you wish to go back on this statement?

"Where there is a criminal element, it should not be handled through arbitration, but through the normal legal system"

Furthermore, since the tribunals will apparently be handling domestic violence cases do you wish to go back on this statement?

"But for domestic violence, it should be the court over the tribunal, every time"

If you do not wish to go back on these two statements then what actually are we arguing about? On the substance we seem to agree.

If you stand by your statements it follows that you believe that neither sharia courts, nor any other sort of arbitration tribunal, should be empowered to handle cases involving domestic violence or criminal cases.

It further follows, assuming you stand by your statements, that you believe the British model of allowing sharia courts do deal with domestic violence cases and, perhaps, with "minor" criminal cases is flawed

I think the religious should be able to live according to their beliefs whether they are Christian or some other religion. I still don't get why stevenimeyer has to mention Islam, Muslim or Sharia in all of hist titles though. Perhaps he would care to elaborate on his obsessions?

Who's getting tied up in knots, stevenlmeyer?

>>[Pericles] "The expectation that only minor cases will be handled in future should also be seen as a plus."

[stevenlmeyer] Criminal cases aside, there is nothing in the quoted text, or in the linked article, which leads to such a conclusion.<<

According to who?

There will be, I am sure, a mix of civil and minor criminal issues involved. And when I talk about minor criminal issues, I believe that I am on the same page as the UK police in determining that minor means minor, not major. Did the footy example slip though to the 'keeper? - a classic case of potentially criminal activity being handled with arbitration totally appropriate to the environment in which the actions took place.

This is an assessment of the information available, by the way, not a personal view as to whether husbands should be allowed to beat their wives to a pulp.

And would you please stop taking one line of my posts out of context, and trumpeting it around as if I have changed my position. It is tedious in the extreme.

>>Furthermore, since the tribunals will apparently be handling domestic violence cases do you wish to go back on this statement?

"But for domestic violence, it should be the court over the tribunal, every time"<<

The context, as you well know, but choose to exclude, was as follows:

"Where there is a criminal element, it should not be handled through arbitration, but through the normal legal system. However, where there is no evidence of criminal activity, it is perfectly in order for an administrative tribunal to guide the solution. I think some leeway should be given to football tribunals... But for domestic violence, it should be the court over the tribunal, every time"

Which part of "where there is criminal activity" escaped your notice?

Your suggestion that there is a black-and-white dividing line between clearly-legal and clearly-criminal, and that judgements as to which side of these lines actions sit are not made by the police on an hourly basis, is nonsensical.

Steel wrote:

"I still don't get why stevenimeyer has to mention Islam, Muslim or Sharia in all of hist titles though."

I don't. My last thread was about "capital" punishment. Previously I've started threads about, inter alia, genetic engineering and cosmology.

Steel wrote:

"I think the religious should be able to live according to their beliefs whether they are Christian or some other religion."

Actually we don’t allow that. There are numerous cases of, for example, courts overruling parents who object to their children receiving blood transfusions on religious grounds. Female genital mutilation is outlawed in most Western countries and quite a few Muslim ones as well. In Holland certain types of kosher slaughter are banned.In some cases in Australia minor children have received contraceptives and birth control advice without the knowledge of Catholic parents.

In one sense this thread is about arbitration. What limits should there be on the powers of arbitrators? I have made my own point of view clear. Arbitration should only be permitted where ALL parties FREELY consent to the procedure. By "freely" I mean that the parties are truly in a position to refuse to submit to arbitration.

I further argue that arbitration should never be permitted where there is a criminal element to the dispute or where domestic violence is involved.

However, this thread is also about the extent to which religious communities should be permitted to set up a parallel legal system albeit one with a limited jurisdiction. And here we have some very deep and difficult questions. I do not pretend to have the answers. But I can foresee some tricky legal conundrums arising around property dispositions where the religious court may differ from the civil law.

LOL Pericles,

Have you considered a career as a theologian?

Theologians are expert at parsing and re-interpreting texts, at gleaning hidden meanings from seemingly mundane verbiage. Their aim is to re-interpret texts in such a way as to make them appear to say something that contradicts the plain meaning of the words. In the hands of a skilled theologian even the Noddy stories can appear deep and meaningful.

Your latest effort qualifies you as a theologian in training of the rabbinical variety.

Of course to those of us in the reality based community the efforts of theologians appear as merely pathetic.

Cutting through your verbal smokescreens, and assuming the Times article is factually correct, the situation is as follows.

--Sharia tribunals in Britain are deciding matters of major importance to the participants. These are far from "minor" cases.

--The tribunals deal with cases involving domestic violence

--According to one spokesman they expect to deal with "smaller" criminal cases in the future.

Perhaps you are, as my daughter is wont to say, "cool" with this. Perhaps you feel only a wicked "Mozzie basher" like me could be nasty enough to question the propriety of this state of affairs.

Well so be it. However these facts do go against two dicta you established.

"But for domestic violence, it should be the court over the tribunal, every time."

And

"Where there is a criminal element, it should not be handled through arbitration, but through the normal legal system."

And this really is my last word on the matter. Your clumsy semantic gymnastics are becoming a bore.