Surprising given how well the Tories have been polling that pb is fixated with Sharia law. No expert on the law am I, but if people willingly agree to settle disputes by private arbitration, how can you stop them. One thing I don't get though is how such decisions can be made binding? Do the Beth din courts have statutory powers or not?
The arbitration clause is part of a contract. The courts of E and W have residual jurisdiction over that contract and will enforce it, mainly in practice by compelling the parties to arbitrate disputes and to comply with the awards made by the arbitrators.
SO and others: I'm well aware that you can leave your property to whoever you like for whatever reason you want. I said so right at the start.
But I do not think it at all desirable - to put it mildly - that we should encourage, approve of or turn a blind eye to the introduction of a deeply misognystic and religiously based legal system to family matters given that this will likely result in women (and others) being worse off than their fellow British female citizens. Sharia law - like all legal systems - says something about the way those who comply with it - view the world. It is a view which I find abhorrent and I find it deeply troubling that our reaction to its spread is to miss the point or somehow think it doesn't matter because it only applies to certain communities.
There's a lot of knowledge about the finer points of will making but not a lot of understanding going on.
Would you specifically ban the use of sharia law in England, but permit other discriminatory religious laws? From where I sit you have to apply the same law to everyone.
SO: "society through Parliament has decided that the religious should get special treatment."
What laws? You've always been able to divide your will any way you like, gender equality laws don't apply to wills.
The Law Society is a professional association, giving guidance to its members about how to service what is presumably a particular market. You can certainly raise ethical or moral questions about it, but I don't see the legal bearing on it.
Likewise in terms of arbitration it's long been the case that if both parties agree they can have it settled by a 3rd party (Jewish Beth din courts etc) subject to challenge in the courts etc.
For that matter are titles/estates/aristocratic thingies/etc still entailed down the male line?
I know this sharia thing is about English law and has no relevance to Scotland. However on the subject of titles etc, how a title, coat of arms etc passes depends entirely on what the Letters Patent from the reigning monarch at the time of grant say. Generally Scottish titles pre 1707 can pass through the female line in the absence of a son, in England few can. Almost no GB titles (1707-1800) can pass through to a female and similarly very few UK titles !800 onwards) can pass to a female. In Scotland we abolished Entails in 1914 but property can be willed to anyone of choice.
In 1963 on the death of the 5th Duke of Sutherland, the English, GB and UK titles passed to the nearest male relative the Earl of Ellesmere who instantly became 6th Duke of Sutherland. He also inherited the Bridgewater wealth. The Scottish titles and estates passed to the 5th Duke's niece, Elizabeth the 24th Countess of Sutherland. The 6th Duke died a few years ago and the whole lot shunted over to another distant male cousin whose 2 sons only have 3 daughters each at present.
Julian Lord Fellowes wife Emma would have inherited the title Earl Kitchener had she been male. The Queen has however accorded her the status of the daughter of an Earl.
Once the royal succession is finally concluded allowing the eldest child of the monarch to inherit regardless of sex, the next thing will be to amend by statute the rules of succession to all titles and dignities. My coat of arms which appears as my avatar will pass on my death to my eldest son if I have one, failing which a daughter and then to my nearest male relative, a 3rd cousin 3 times removed in Australia!
Southam, thanks for clearing that up. I get it now. The reason Muslims want sharia-compliant wills that discriminate against daughters is actually because all Muslims want to make sure their sons and daughters are treated equally.
Thank God all Muslims are as liberal, equitable, sensible, and downright admirable as you! - otherwise we might be encouraging religiously-mandated misogyny.
SO and others: I'm well aware that you can leave your property to whoever you like for whatever reason you want. I said so right at the start.
But I do not think it at all desirable - to put it mildly - that we should encourage, approve of or turn a blind eye to the introduction of a deeply misognystic and religiously based legal system to family matters given that this will likely result in women (and others) being worse off than their fellow British female citizens. Sharia law - like all legal systems - says something about the way those who comply with it - view the world. It is a view which I find abhorrent and I find it deeply troubling that our reaction to its spread is to miss the point or somehow think it doesn't matter because it only applies to certain communities.
There's a lot of knowledge about the finer points of will making but not a lot of understanding going on.
Would you specifically ban the use of sharia law in England, but permit other discriminatory religious laws? From where I sit you have to apply the same law to everyone.
There has been some discussion regarding Sharia inheritence.
Another side of the "rights" of women under Sharia inheritence law should be taken into account:
If a parent wishes to disinherit a daughter because she married someone against the wishes of the parent[s], under Sharia law she cannot be disinherited.
The daughter has rights [ though half as much as a male child ]. However, as I am not a lawyer, I do not know if this bit can be challenged by daughters in a court of law in Britain.
Surprising given how well the Tories have been polling that pb is fixated with Sharia law. No expert on the law am I, but if people willingly agree to settle disputes by private arbitration, how can you stop them. One thing I don't get though is how such decisions can be made binding? Do the Beth din courts have statutory powers or not?
They aren't binding, but they are taken into account (iirc). Either party that's unhappy with the decision can appeal but the presumption is in favour of the mutually agreed arbitrator's decision unless something pretty flagrant's gone on.
But what can be done if someone who has agreed to play ball changes their mind after the arbitration and won't accept the decision? What is the legal basis of the contract?
Surprising given how well the Tories have been polling that pb is fixated with Sharia law. No expert on the law am I, but if people willingly agree to settle disputes by private arbitration, how can you stop them. One thing I don't get though is how such decisions can be made binding? Do the Beth din courts have statutory powers or not?
They aren't binding, but they are taken into account (iirc). Either party that's unhappy with the decision can appeal but the presumption is in favour of the mutually agreed arbitrator's decision unless something pretty flagrant's gone on.
But what can be done if someone who has agreed to play ball changes their mind after the arbitration and won't accept the decision? What is the legal basis of the contract?
The legal basis of the contract is simply that it's a contract and the parties are bound to whatever they have agreed to. If the losing party doesn't accept the decision you can enforce it just as if it were a judgment of the court.
Two interesting tweets from the man from the Sun steve hawkes @steve_hawkes And Ed Miliband completely dismisses suggestion he messed up on Budget Day, the day Labour's poll lead began to shrink
steve hawkes @steve_hawkes After seeing Labour's poll lead tumble, Ed Miliband tells ITV's The Agenda the coming Election will be "close", stakes "incredibly high"
There has been some discussion regarding Sharia inheritence.
Another side of the "rights" of women under Sharia inheritence law should be taken into account:
If a parent wishes to disinherit a daughter because she married someone against the wishes of the parent[s], under Sharia law she cannot be disinherited.
The daughter has rights [ though half as much as a male child ]. However, as I am not a lawyer, I do not know if this bit can be challenged by daughters in a court of law in Britain.
Two interesting tweets from the man from the Sun steve hawkes @steve_hawkes And Ed Miliband completely dismisses suggestion he messed up on Budget Day, the day Labour's poll lead began to shrink
steve hawkes @steve_hawkes After seeing Labour's poll lead tumble, Ed Miliband tells ITV's The Agenda the coming Election will be "close", stakes "incredibly high"
And.....why was he wrong with either ? Everybody knows the election will be close ?
Question is: can the Tories ever get more than 37% ?
Two interesting tweets from the man from the Sun steve hawkes @steve_hawkes And Ed Miliband completely dismisses suggestion he messed up on Budget Day, the day Labour's poll lead began to shrink
steve hawkes @steve_hawkes After seeing Labour's poll lead tumble, Ed Miliband tells ITV's The Agenda the coming Election will be "close", stakes "incredibly high"
And.....why was he wrong with either ? Everybody knows the election will be close ?
Question is: can the Tories ever get more than 37% ?
I'll bet you £5000 they can.
Mind you 'ever' is quite a long time period so I'll be very generous and say the next 50 years?
Surprising given how well the Tories have been polling that pb is fixated with Sharia law. No expert on the law am I, but if people willingly agree to settle disputes by private arbitration, how can you stop them. One thing I don't get though is how such decisions can be made binding? Do the Beth din courts have statutory powers or not?
They aren't binding, but they are taken into account (iirc). Either party that's unhappy with the decision can appeal but the presumption is in favour of the mutually agreed arbitrator's decision unless something pretty flagrant's gone on.
But what can be done if someone who has agreed to play ball changes their mind after the arbitration and won't accept the decision? What is the legal basis of the contract?
The legal basis of the contract is simply that it's a contract and the parties are bound to whatever they have agreed to. If the losing party doesn't accept the decision you can enforce it just as if it were a judgment of the court.
If I wanted to set up my own equivalent of the Jewish courts, would I be able to do so? Are you saying that effectively they sign a contract which says they'll agree to the decision of the arbitrator?
Southam, thanks for clearing that up. I get it now. The reason Muslims want sharia-compliant wills that discriminate against daughters is actually because all Muslims want to make sure their sons and daughters are treated equally.
Thank God all Muslims are as liberal, equitable, sensible, and downright admirable as you! - otherwise we might be encouraging religiously-mandated misogyny.
Mr. Corporeal, but do we have a de facto Jewish anti-blasphemy law? The Sharia business cannot be taken in isolation.
Define de-facto anti-blasphemy law.
The fact that no important British newspaper or magazine dared to publish the Mo-toons. Unlike their braver counterparts on the continent. Start there.
I thought you were a big fan of those brave fellows in the right wing press, never cowed from taking on those who threaten our society.
Southam, thanks for clearing that up. I get it now. The reason Muslims want sharia-compliant wills that discriminate against daughters is actually because all Muslims want to make sure their sons and daughters are treated equally.
Thank God all Muslims are as liberal, equitable, sensible, and downright admirable as you! - otherwise we might be encouraging religiously-mandated misogyny.
There has been some discussion regarding Sharia inheritence.
Another side of the "rights" of women under Sharia inheritence law should be taken into account:
If a parent wishes to disinherit a daughter because she married someone against the wishes of the parent[s], under Sharia law she cannot be disinherited.
The daughter has rights [ though half as much as a male child ]. However, as I am not a lawyer, I do not know if this bit can be challenged by daughters in a court of law in Britain.
"It seems from your question that your sister has not declared any apostasy from Islam, but there remains the issue of her marriage to a non-Muslim and her saying that her children are free to choose between Islam and Christianity. So we say:
1. It seems that her marriage to a Christian man is an invalid, haraam marriage. If she did that regarding it as permissible when she was aware of the prohibition on it, then that constitutes apostasy from Islam, and the apostate cannot inherit from his Muslim relative. If she did not regard it as permissible, then she is a sinner, as mentioned above, but that does not prevent her from inheriting."
On the face of it, the two sentences are contradictory and it's too late in the night for me to become a lawyer.
There has been some discussion regarding Sharia inheritence.
Another side of the "rights" of women under Sharia inheritence law should be taken into account:
If a parent wishes to disinherit a daughter because she married someone against the wishes of the parent[s], under Sharia law she cannot be disinherited.
The daughter has rights [ though half as much as a male child ]. However, as I am not a lawyer, I do not know if this bit can be challenged by daughters in a court of law in Britain.
"It seems from your question that your sister has not declared any apostasy from Islam, but there remains the issue of her marriage to a non-Muslim and her saying that her children are free to choose between Islam and Christianity. So we say:
1. It seems that her marriage to a Christian man is an invalid, haraam marriage. If she did that regarding it as permissible when she was aware of the prohibition on it, then that constitutes apostasy from Islam, and the apostate cannot inherit from his Muslim relative. If she did not regard it as permissible, then she is a sinner, as mentioned above, but that does not prevent her from inheriting."
On the face of it, the two sentences are contradictory and it's too late in the night for me to become a lawyer.
What about us Muslim chaps who married an infidel non Muslim?
SO: "society through Parliament has decided that the religious should get special treatment."
Where? Catholics weren't given special treatment over adoption agencies. They could not opt out of the law saying that there should be no discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. Why should Muslims be allowed to opt out of the laws on gender equality?
There is a clash here between the tenets of sharia law and English law and I am clear that English law should prevail. Sharia law simply shouldn't be given the time of day. And that applies to marriage,divorce and the rest of it. What are we going to have - lots of little community Bantustans all living side by side - separate but equal? This way madness lies for a society.
There are a variety of laws that allow for conscientious objection. That's not really the issue here, though.
English law isn't clashing with Sharia law, in this instance. People (like Robert Smithson's friend's father) can dispose of their property as they see fit. They can be as bigoted as they like; it's their property. I prefer our model of testamentary freedom to the continental model of forced heirship.
But, while it may be lawful to give daughters less than sons, or to disinherit apostates, I don't regard it as desirable. For that reason, I don't believe the Law Society should be given this guidance.
Exactly right.
Incidentally, I'm curious to know what the courts would make of a will that was, say, openly racist: a will that disinherited daughters if they married a black man, or a Pakistani - or a Muslim or a Jew, for that matter.
If the daughter challenged the will then it would, in part, I presume, turn on the definition of "black" or "Jewish" which would itself be very problematic.
And what if a will went further, and used racist language: "I hereby disinherit my daughter if she marries a n*****r"? The meaning of the will would still be clear, so would it still be *legal*, and yet....
This was a famous case. No one commented on its... restrictive characteristics.
Mr. Corporeal, but do we have a de facto Jewish anti-blasphemy law? The Sharia business cannot be taken in isolation.
Define de-facto anti-blasphemy law.
The fact that no important British newspaper or magazine dared to publish the Mo-toons. Unlike their braver counterparts on the continent. Start there.
I thought you were a big fan of those brave fellows in the right wing press, never cowed from taking on those who threaten our society.
In this instance they were ridiculously effete and cowardly. What's worse, they gussied it up as being some kind of principle - I can recall the strident and righteous editorials from the Timea and the Telegraph et al: "We firmly believe in free speech, and the right to publish these cartoons, however we're going to censor these cartoons, because we are scared, no, sorry, because it would be impolite".
Tossers.
Looking back it all began with Rushdie, and the feeble reaction to that, and it has got progressively worse since. Cretinous, repugnant liberal appeasers like Southam Observer are the reason why.
The attitude you speak of, one that conducts ill feeling between the extremist minority of both the immigrant and existing population, was called out nearly forty years ago by Enoch Powell.
Ladbrokes - Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross (LD maj = 4,826)
LD 2/5 Lab 3/1 SNP 6/1 Con 100/1 UKIP 100/1
Hmmm... Baxter rates this as an SNP Gain:
SNP 42.5% chance LD 22.8% Lab 22.0% Con 11.8%
That 6/1 looks flippin tasty when one considers that the SNP won this seat with a whopping 7,458 majority in 2011.
The noble Viscount is a very popular MP and the seat has been in and out of the Sinclair family's hands for generations. Word on the street is that Labour are favourite to take it. If John Thurso decides to retire, Labour will take it. If he fights on he may just hang on. He will have to do it though without tactical Tory voters. We just don't do tactical voting.
Either way, LD 2/5 is just ridiculously short. A bit each on LAB and SNP must be the value bets.
Surprising given how well the Tories have been polling that pb is fixated with Sharia law. No expert on the law am I, but if people willingly agree to settle disputes by private arbitration, how can you stop them. One thing I don't get though is how such decisions can be made binding? Do the Beth din courts have statutory powers or not?
They aren't binding, but they are taken into account (iirc). Either party that's unhappy with the decision can appeal but the presumption is in favour of the mutually agreed arbitrator's decision unless something pretty flagrant's gone on.
But what can be done if someone who has agreed to play ball changes their mind after the arbitration and won't accept the decision? What is the legal basis of the contract?
The legal basis of the contract is simply that it's a contract and the parties are bound to whatever they have agreed to. If the losing party doesn't accept the decision you can enforce it just as if it were a judgment of the court.
If I wanted to set up my own equivalent of the Jewish courts, would I be able to do so? Are you saying that effectively they sign a contract which says they'll agree to the decision of the arbitrator?
Yes, exactly. You could even make a living out of it - lots of commercial contracts like ship charterparties have arbitration in London, English law clauses, and there are bods who are full-time professional arbitrators.
There has been some discussion regarding Sharia inheritence.
Another side of the "rights" of women under Sharia inheritence law should be taken into account:
If a parent wishes to disinherit a daughter because she married someone against the wishes of the parent[s], under Sharia law she cannot be disinherited.
The daughter has rights [ though half as much as a male child ]. However, as I am not a lawyer, I do not know if this bit can be challenged by daughters in a court of law in Britain.
"It seems from your question that your sister has not declared any apostasy from Islam, but there remains the issue of her marriage to a non-Muslim and her saying that her children are free to choose between Islam and Christianity. So we say:
1. It seems that her marriage to a Christian man is an invalid, haraam marriage. If she did that regarding it as permissible when she was aware of the prohibition on it, then that constitutes apostasy from Islam, and the apostate cannot inherit from his Muslim relative. If she did not regard it as permissible, then she is a sinner, as mentioned above, but that does not prevent her from inheriting."
On the face of it, the two sentences are contradictory and it's too late in the night for me to become a lawyer.
What about us Muslim chaps who married an infidel non Muslim?
Looking again, can you explain to me how something can be Shariah compliant if it does not follow its inequitable inheritance between men and women?
Because plenty can be done before someone dies. Under Sharia law the will itself does not need to be the only part of the process of dividing up an estate.
But why would anyone bother to do that, when they can just discriminate in the will itself?
There has been some discussion regarding Sharia inheritence.
Another side of the "rights" of women under Sharia inheritence law should be taken into account:
If a parent wishes to disinherit a daughter because she married someone against the wishes of the parent[s], under Sharia law she cannot be disinherited.
The daughter has rights [ though half as much as a male child ]. However, as I am not a lawyer, I do not know if this bit can be challenged by daughters in a court of law in Britain.
"It seems from your question that your sister has not declared any apostasy from Islam, but there remains the issue of her marriage to a non-Muslim and her saying that her children are free to choose between Islam and Christianity. So we say:
1. It seems that her marriage to a Christian man is an invalid, haraam marriage. If she did that regarding it as permissible when she was aware of the prohibition on it, then that constitutes apostasy from Islam, and the apostate cannot inherit from his Muslim relative. If she did not regard it as permissible, then she is a sinner, as mentioned above, but that does not prevent her from inheriting."
On the face of it, the two sentences are contradictory and it's too late in the night for me to become a lawyer.
What about us Muslim chaps who married an infidel non Muslim?
With Google you can find anything. But isn't it the case that as long as a "chap" marries a Christian or a Jew, there is no need to convert her. ? If that is the case, logically, nothing changes, I would have thought.
Regarding the below debate over sharia law versus English law... Come back FPTP versus AV.
I just don't get religion. Not one bit.
A religion is where a bunch of underachieving neurotic dimwits get together to attack a different bunch of underachieving neurotic dimwits.
If people want to live in a country run by Sharia law there are a lot of basket case countries they can go and live (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia etc). But which came first, the basket case or the religion?
The sad thing about the whole debate about Islamic wills is that clearly almost no one has bothered to spend a few minutes actually finding out what is different about a will that meets Islamic standards.
It is perfectly acceptable under Sharia law to distribute ones inheritance legally amongst ones children, male or female. Although the guidelines say that male heirs should get twice what female heirs get this is neither a hard and fast rule nor can a will be challenged if it does not adhere to this suggestion. What is not allowed is to give all of ones inheritance to one child and cut others out unless there is a good reason (criminality etc). In this way Islamic law is rather more like French law but without the need for absolute equality. So funnily enough under English law one can be far more discriminatory against possible female beneficiaries than under Islamic law. The main reason I suspect that many muslims have their wills drawn up under Sharia law is that it is simple., No deciding who gets what share as it is all set out in advance and all one has to do is state that one wishes ones will to be executed under Sharia guidelines.
The other major difference is that one cannot give more than 1/3rd of ones wealth away to other beneficiaries outside of ones legal heirs. So leaving your whole wealth to Battersea Dogs home or the Young Conservatives is not an option under Islamic law.
Actually after having said all this I still don't agree with enshrining Islamic systems in English Law but if you are going to argue the case at least do it from a point of understanding the differences rather than the knee jerk stereotyping.
I believe that is permitted. It is only female muslims that are not permitted to do so.
It's amazing how much protest there is over allowing Christian churches to allow women bishops, yet the silence over the much more widespread discrimination in Islam.
Why can't we get a genuinely liberal party in the UK? It's a pretty basic political philosophy, yet there's not a single party that stands up for proper classical liberalism on a consistent basis. Labour and the Tories both back the nanny state and government spying without probable cause. The Lib Dems want to transfer power from the national parliament to the EU and it's governance by bureaucratic fiat. UKIP try to win votes by being anti-gay and turn a blind eye to foreign aggression abroad.
It makes me want to tear my hair out. All I want is a government that supports individual freedom for behaviour that doesn't harm others, adequately punishes people infringing others' rights, upholds our democratic institutions and judicial norms, limits the flow of reactionaries into the country, and stands up for the liberal international system. Is that really too much to ask?
Comments
Another side of the "rights" of women under Sharia inheritence law should be taken into account:
If a parent wishes to disinherit a daughter because she married someone against the wishes of the parent[s], under Sharia law she cannot be disinherited.
The daughter has rights [ though half as much as a male child ]. However, as I am not a lawyer, I do not know if this bit can be challenged by daughters in a court of law in Britain.
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/censoring-jesus-and-mo-establishes-uk.html
Edited extra bit: Mr. Corporeal, I posted this without seeing your post a few minutes earlier, but it also answers your question.
steve hawkes @steve_hawkes
And Ed Miliband completely dismisses suggestion he messed up on Budget Day, the day Labour's poll lead began to shrink
steve hawkes @steve_hawkes
After seeing Labour's poll lead tumble, Ed Miliband tells ITV's The Agenda the coming Election will be "close", stakes "incredibly high"
tom_watson ✔ @tom_watson
Worse than 2 shadow ministers anonymously briefing is the idiot "spokesperson" predicting the size of a rebellion! http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a67677a-b36c-11e3-b891-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2wsNDV4qa …
Question is: can the Tories ever get more than 37% ?
Mind you 'ever' is quite a long time period so I'll be very generous and say the next 50 years?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100264821/everyone-now-agrees-miliband-isnt-working/
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/labour-manifesto-should-include-thing-about-killing-all-the-rich-people-2014032485000
http://islamqa.info/en/170862
Excerpt:
"It seems from your question that your sister has not declared any apostasy from Islam, but there remains the issue of her marriage to a non-Muslim and her saying that her children are free to choose between Islam and Christianity. So we say:
1. It seems that her marriage to a Christian man is an invalid, haraam marriage. If she did that regarding it as permissible when she was aware of the prohibition on it, then that constitutes apostasy from Islam, and the apostate cannot inherit from his Muslim relative. If she did not regard it as permissible, then she is a sinner, as mentioned above, but that does not prevent her from inheriting."
On the face of it, the two sentences are contradictory and it's too late in the night for me to become a lawyer.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1977/11.html
Search for "The Road To National Suicide"
Sun Politics @Sun_Politics 25s
YouGov/Sun poll tonight- Labour lead shrinks to just two points: CON 36%, LAB 38%, LD 10%, UKIP 10%
Come back FPTP versus AV.
I just don't get religion. Not one bit.
Do you want Sharia Law adopted, conducted under AV.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn
YouGov/Sun poll tonight: CON 36%, LAB 38%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 10%. Labour lead still now only 2 points. Appears Tories have retaken UKIP votes.
If people want to live in a country run by Sharia law there are a lot of basket case countries they can go and live (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia etc). But which came first, the basket case or the religion?
It is perfectly acceptable under Sharia law to distribute ones inheritance legally amongst ones children, male or female. Although the guidelines say that male heirs should get twice what female heirs get this is neither a hard and fast rule nor can a will be challenged if it does not adhere to this suggestion. What is not allowed is to give all of ones inheritance to one child and cut others out unless there is a good reason (criminality etc). In this way Islamic law is rather more like French law but without the need for absolute equality. So funnily enough under English law one can be far more discriminatory against possible female beneficiaries than under Islamic law. The main reason I suspect that many muslims have their wills drawn up under Sharia law is that it is simple., No deciding who gets what share as it is all set out in advance and all one has to do is state that one wishes ones will to be executed under Sharia guidelines.
The other major difference is that one cannot give more than 1/3rd of ones wealth away to other beneficiaries outside of ones legal heirs. So leaving your whole wealth to Battersea Dogs home or the Young Conservatives is not an option under Islamic law.
Actually after having said all this I still don't agree with enshrining Islamic systems in English Law but if you are going to argue the case at least do it from a point of understanding the differences rather than the knee jerk stereotyping.
Why can't we get a genuinely liberal party in the UK? It's a pretty basic political philosophy, yet there's not a single party that stands up for proper classical liberalism on a consistent basis. Labour and the Tories both back the nanny state and government spying without probable cause. The Lib Dems want to transfer power from the national parliament to the EU and it's governance by bureaucratic fiat. UKIP try to win votes by being anti-gay and turn a blind eye to foreign aggression abroad.
It makes me want to tear my hair out. All I want is a government that supports individual freedom for behaviour that doesn't harm others, adequately punishes people infringing others' rights, upholds our democratic institutions and judicial norms, limits the flow of reactionaries into the country, and stands up for the liberal international system. Is that really too much to ask?