politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Marf on the segregation debate

Err http://www.theshariahproject.com/1/post/2013/12/shariah-compliant-legal-notices-to-be-given-to-muslims-selling-alcohol.html isn't it illegal or something to send a letter pertaining to be from the council that isn't ?

taffys said:

Imagine you are a brick lane shopkeeper. Would you be bricking it that one night a few masked guys are going to break into your house and give you forty lashes?? or worse??

Lol no, of course not. I'd imagine they'd fear far worse. But speech threatening violence against a group is illegal in this country and whilst we should remain as liberal as possible the law should definitely be used as judiciously as possible to go after ne'er do wells.

Morris_Dancer said:

No, he isn't, Mr. Ninoinoz. The Syrian people began a civil protest movement which escalated into civil war. Claiming Cameron's responsible for the Syrian civil war is bonkers.

I fear there will be lawsuits against churches. Unfortunately the rights agenda that seems to hold sway is less about common sense compromise and more about a pissing contest of whose rights matter more.

The rights agenda is simply about Who governs Whom.

isam said:

Pulpstar said:

Err http://www.theshariahproject.com/1/post/2013/12/shariah-compliant-legal-notices-to-be-given-to-muslims-selling-alcohol.html isn't it illegal or something to send a letter pertaining to be from the council that isn't ?

I would have thought Shariah councils believe they are thought of as the council by many people in the area

I've asked Tower Hamlets on twitter...

Good luck with that one Santa Thomas, if a seven year old cannot play with it, watch it, drink it or eat it when they open it on Christmas day they will not be impressed!

SeanT said:

Excellent cartoon, btw

I have solved my Christmas shopping conundrum (i.e. I hate doing it) by giving everyone posh wine, including my 7 year old daughter (she can lay it down until she is 18).

Pulpstar said:

isam said:

Pulpstar said:

Err http://www.theshariahproject.com/1/post/2013/12/shariah-compliant-legal-notices-to-be-given-to-muslims-selling-alcohol.html isn't it illegal or something to send a letter pertaining to be from the council that isn't ?

I would have thought Shariah councils believe they are thought of as the council by many people in the area

I've asked Tower Hamlets on twitter...

Its nothing to do with what most British citizens would think of as the council, ie a democratically elected body for everyone in the borough, it is a Shariah council set up by strict muslims (and only for muslims)

But it is an example of the segregation that takes place in Tower Hamlets, the most lauded borough on this website (by people that probably have never been there).

isam said:

Pulpstar said:

isam said:

Pulpstar said:

Err http://www.theshariahproject.com/1/post/2013/12/shariah-compliant-legal-notices-to-be-given-to-muslims-selling-alcohol.html isn't it illegal or something to send a letter pertaining to be from the council that isn't ?

I would have thought Shariah councils believe they are thought of as the council by many people in the area

I've asked Tower Hamlets on twitter...

Its nothing to do with what most British citizens would think of as the council, ie a democratically elected body for everyone in the borough, it is a Shariah council set up by strict muslims.

But it is an example of the segregation that takes place in Tower Hamlets, the most lauded borough on this website (by people that probably have never been there).

While I also deplore the segragation, haven't we allowed religious Jewish courts in North London that allow people with civil disputes to opt out of out existing legal system. (And, of course, binding arbitration courts in business - adminstered by people whose employment and loyalties are not to the state.)

To put it another way, are we sure we're opposing this because we don't want people using alternate systems for their civil disputes - rather than because the people are Muslim.

isam said:

Pulpstar said:

isam said:

Pulpstar said:

Err http://www.theshariahproject.com/1/post/2013/12/shariah-compliant-legal-notices-to-be-given-to-muslims-selling-alcohol.html isn't it illegal or something to send a letter pertaining to be from the council that isn't ?

I would have thought Shariah councils believe they are thought of as the council by many people in the area

I've asked Tower Hamlets on twitter...

Its nothing to do with what most British citizens would think of as the council, ie a democratically elected body for everyone in the borough, it is a Shariah council set up by strict muslims (and only for muslims)

But it is an example of the segregation that takes place in Tower Hamlets, the most lauded borough on this website (by people that probably have never been there).

But they are using the name of Tower Hamlets council, and I'd think they would want to know about it.

Ninoinoz said:

maaarsh said:

Neil said:

Ninoinoz said:

As for gay "marriage" not being anti-Christian, I await the lawsuit against churches.

How is gay marriage anti-Christian but not anti-Muslim?

In practical terms, because the Gay rights crowd won't have the courage of their convictions to challenge the group more prone to violent threats and actions.

I think there is more to it than that.

The reason Cameron has really annoyed Christians is that the Conservative Party is supposed to be their champion, fighting their corner so to speak.

He has completely relinquished that role (and 10-20% of the electorate) to chase after the Centre or Centre-Left vote. Take a look at the Godless Xmas card he's sent out. Virtually identical design to Miliband's and Clegg's.

Muslims are well-organised with a strong group identity and dominate large sections of the Labour Party. The moment the Conservative Party stopped representing Christians, secularists had a free unopposed run against them.

Not to worry, Cameron will lose the next election heavily due to his cluelessness and social conservatives will regain control of the party.

Incidentally, there are encouraging signs in this country that Muslims and Christians are uniting in the cause of their religious freedoms. This can only increase as the liberals they thought were their friends are shown up to be just as racist as the NF/BNP, but rather better at hiding it. Until now.

I don't agree that the introduction of gay marriage necessarily infringes the rights of Christians (we'll have to wait for the inevitable litigation to see if it does). On the face of it, it doesn't do so.

Nonetheless, there's no doubt at all that many Christian Conservative voters took it as a poke in the eye from Cameron.

AndyJS said:

"allow people with civil disputes to opt out of out existing legal system"

Should never have been allowed to happen with any groups of people IMO. Once you concede the principle it's a slippery slope.

How would you propose to stop people agreeing to binding arbitration of any sort? I mean you can obviously choose not to recognise the outcome but to actually stop them from voluntarily agreeing to arbitration in the first place?

Absolutely ridiculous decision by Gove in preventing an existing Kent grammar school from creating a satellite school in Sevenoaks (which presently has no grammar school at all). He has just provided yet another reason for Tories to move to UKIP! If the existing legislation does not allow for it then he should change it
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/education/article3948912.ece

AndyJS said:

"allow people with civil disputes to opt out of out existing legal system"

Should never have been allowed to happen with any groups of people IMO. Once you concede the principle it's a slippery slope.

Quite right. And aren't these 'Sharia Courts' institutionally anti-female? You can see what will happen. A woman will be obliged to attend one because of 'pressure' from her 'community' and will be roundly stitched up. It's shameful that the Left is giving succour to the formation of quasi-judicial entities that draw on medieval hogwash to subjugate women.

AndyJS said:

"allow people with civil disputes to opt out of out existing legal system"

Should never have been allowed to happen with any groups of people IMO. Once you concede the principle it's a slippery slope.

While I tend to agree, the problem is that - as you say - it's a slippery slope.

When you sign up to an on-line bookmaker (IIRC), then the T&Cs say that you cannot go through the UK legal system to resolve differences, and instead must use the Independent Betting Adjudication Service Ltd. In other words, you have chosen to opt out of the existing legal system. If you don't accept this opt-out, the bookmaker simply will not deal with you.

Now, if two Jewish traders in Golders Green agree to use their local Rabbinical Court for arbitration if a disagreement ensures, then surely it's their right?

(See where we're going with slippery...)

What about for a couple who get married in a Synagogue and agree as part of the marriage contract to refer any disagreements to the Rabbinical Court? (See: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed111507 for an example)

It's a tough one: if two people agree to use a non-state court for arbitration, then how can we stop them? The question I think is one of primacy - it should be impossible for said courts to over-rule the law of the state in any way, and there should always be the right to appeal to the courts of the land, and the courts of the land should have the right (but not the obligation) to ignore the decisions of non-state arbitration. But I think, IIRC, that that is roughly the state we're in now. One of our resident lawyers (Sean_F, life_in_a...) can probably enlighten us.

Huckabee running in 2016?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/12/13/huckabee-says-he-may-make-another-run-for-gop-presidential-nod/

Also, have we sorted out the technical problems with pb yet? It takes me about 20 minutes to troll through previous threads to get to the present thread at present

@hyufd, and anyone struggling with the frontpage. Bookmark http://www.politicalbetting.com/?a=1

Cyclefree said:

Neil said:

Cyclefree said:

I'd have thought that it's more clearly a threat of violence and should be prosecuted as such.

Ignoring it - on the Nick Palmer basis that it will give him publicity - is pathetic.

Didnt Nick's post say precisely the opposite - "Anyone who threatens violence should indeed be prosecuted IMO"

He did. I stand corrected. Apologies to Nick P.

I was responding to his earlier point that Choudry is just a publicity seeker. He may well be that but he is a menace if he threatens or icites others to threaten violence. We ignored Abu Hamza on the same basis for years and years and while we were ignoring him he was committing serious criminal offences for which, thank God, he is now in prison.

Just because a man's a fool doesn't means that he's not also dangerous.

Thanks, Cyclefree and Neil. And yes, I agree that foolish people can be dangerous and should be prosecuted if they are. But that should not be an occasion to indulge them in lavishly publicising their views. (That applies, all the more, to the man on trial for beheading.) It merely encourages copycats.

Ninoinoz said:

The reason Cameron has really annoyed Christians is that the Conservative Party is supposed to be their champion, fighting their corner so to speak.

Cameron hasn't annoyed this Christian, so please don't think that you speak for all of us who follow Jesus, Ninoinoz. In what way does same-sex marriage being legal impinge on the lives and the rights of Christians who believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman?

It's worth saying that by no means all Christians think sex should just be woman-man but, even among those who do, why should others be constrained by that morality? I say hooray for Cameron being liberal and letting adults decide how they want to live, when there's no demonstrable impact on others!

rcs1000 said:

AndyJS said:

"allow people with civil disputes to opt out of out existing legal system"

Should never have been allowed to happen with any groups of people IMO. Once you concede the principle it's a slippery slope.

While I tend to agree, the problem is that - as you say - it's a slippery slope.

When you sign up to an on-line bookmaker (IIRC), then the T&Cs say that you cannot go through the UK legal system to resolve differences, and instead must use the Independent Betting Adjudication Service Ltd. In other words, you have chosen to opt out of the existing legal system. If you don't accept this opt-out, the bookmaker simply will not deal with you.

Now, if two Jewish traders in Golders Green agree to use their local Rabbinical Court for arbitration if a disagreement ensures, then surely it's their right?

(See where we're going with slippery...)

What about for a couple who get married in a Synagogue and agree as part of the marriage contract to refer any disagreements to the Rabbinical Court? (See: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed111507 for an example)

It's a tough one: if two people agree to use a non-state court for arbitration, then how can we stop them? The question I think is one of primacy - it should be impossible for said courts to over-rule the law of the state in any way, and there should always be the right to appeal to the courts of the land, and the courts of the land should have the right (but not the obligation) to ignore the decisions of non-state arbitration. But I think, IIRC, that that is roughly the state we're in now. One of our resident lawyers (Sean_F, life_in_a...) can probably enlighten us.

I think you're basically correct. Arbitration can't oust the jurisdiction of the courts. Nothing prevents a Muslim or Jewish woman from seeking a divorce before an English court. And her divorce is then valid according to English law. But, her own people may still deem her to be married. The civil law can't change that perception.

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

AndyJS said:

"allow people with civil disputes to opt out of out existing legal system"

Should never have been allowed to happen with any groups of people IMO. Once you concede the principle it's a slippery slope.

While I tend to agree, the problem is that - as you say - it's a slippery slope.

When you sign up to an on-line bookmaker (IIRC), then the T&Cs say that you cannot go through the UK legal system to resolve differences, and instead must use the Independent Betting Adjudication Service Ltd. In other words, you have chosen to opt out of the existing legal system. If you don't accept this opt-out, the bookmaker simply will not deal with you.

Now, if two Jewish traders in Golders Green agree to use their local Rabbinical Court for arbitration if a disagreement ensures, then surely it's their right?

(See where we're going with slippery...)

What about for a couple who get married in a Synagogue and agree as part of the marriage contract to refer any disagreements to the Rabbinical Court? (See: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed111507 for an example)

It's a tough one: if two people agree to use a non-state court for arbitration, then how can we stop them? The question I think is one of primacy - it should be impossible for said courts to over-rule the law of the state in any way, and there should always be the right to appeal to the courts of the land, and the courts of the land should have the right (but not the obligation) to ignore the decisions of non-state arbitration. But I think, IIRC, that that is roughly the state we're in now. One of our resident lawyers (Sean_F, life_in_a...) can probably enlighten us.

I think you're basically correct. Arbitration can't oust the jurisdiction of the courts. Nothing prevents a Muslim or Jewish woman from seeking a divorce before an English court. And her divorce is then valid according to English law. But, her own people may still deem her to be married. The civil law can't change that perception.

"But, her own people may still deem her to be married."

Precisely the point.

Shariah Law is only able to be suggested in places like Tower Hamlets because it has an audience. Supply & Demand transcends even the most divided & segregated of London Boroughs.

Excuse makers fuel the fire. It should be nipped in the bud. Make a new law to make the punishment more severe or else watch a country split into many fragments.. then what might happen I wonder....

isam said:

Make a new law to make the punishment more severe

Punishment for what?

@JohnRentoul: ComRes for @IndyOnSunday & Sunday Mirror: Con 29% (0) Lab 36% (+1) UKIP 18% (+1) LD 8% (-2) http://t.co/LMpu0nkMCB

Floater said:

Sean_F said:

antifrank said:

Anyone who has been to Brick Lane will know just how unlikely it is that it will go dry.

Have you ever visited the restaurant that has a mural of Princess Diana's head bursting out of the River Ganges?

I don't think I have ever had anything better than an average curry in Brick Lane.

Hate the hassle of the people trying to get you in their particular restaurant too.

I second all of this.

Opinium/The Sunil on Sunday:

Coalition 38%
Labour 37%

isam said:

Neil said:

isam said:

Make a new law to make the punishment more severe

Punishment for what?

Running a Sharia Court

Ah, you want to make that a criminal offence? Interesting.

Tim I think even the homeless would turn down a free Christmas meal with George Osborne

Just asked Mrs scrapheap if she'd like me to treat her to joining the Tory party as a Xmas present. Didn't go down particularly positively... honestly women are a mystery sometimes aren't they? spurs pj's it is then for her.

isam said:

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

AndyJS said:

"allow people with civil disputes to opt out of out existing legal system"

Should never have been allowed to happen with any groups of people IMO. Once you concede the principle it's a slippery slope.

While I tend to agree, the problem is that - as you say - it's a slippery slope.

When you sign up to an on-line bookmaker (IIRC), then the T&Cs say that you cannot go through the UK legal system to resolve differences, and instead must use the Independent Betting Adjudication Service Ltd. In other words, you have chosen to opt out of the existing legal system. If you don't accept this opt-out, the bookmaker simply will not deal with you.

Now, if two Jewish traders in Golders Green agree to use their local Rabbinical Court for arbitration if a disagreement ensures, then surely it's their right?

(See where we're going with slippery...)

What about for a couple who get married in a Synagogue and agree as part of the marriage contract to refer any disagreements to the Rabbinical Court? (See: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed111507 for an example)

It's a tough one: if two people agree to use a non-state court for arbitration, then how can we stop them? The question I think is one of primacy - it should be impossible for said courts to over-rule the law of the state in any way, and there should always be the right to appeal to the courts of the land, and the courts of the land should have the right (but not the obligation) to ignore the decisions of non-state arbitration. But I think, IIRC, that that is roughly the state we're in now. One of our resident lawyers (Sean_F, life_in_a...) can probably enlighten us.

I think you're basically correct. Arbitration can't oust the jurisdiction of the courts. Nothing prevents a Muslim or Jewish woman from seeking a divorce before an English court. And her divorce is then valid according to English law. But, her own people may still deem her to be married. The civil law can't change that perception.

"But, her own people may still deem her to be married."

Precisely the point.

Shariah Law is only able to be suggested in places like Tower Hamlets because it has an audience. Supply & Demand transcends even the most divided & segregated of London Boroughs.

Excuse makers fuel the fire. It should be nipped in the bud. Make a new law to make the punishment more severe or else watch a country split into many fragments.. then what might happen I wonder....

I don't know how you can - or ought - to alter that.

In medieval Europe, Christian countries with Muslim or Jewish minorities granted wide powers to their religious leaders to govern them. That's not the case in UK. But, they still have moral authority. One can't legislate to make people think differently.

tim said:

HYUFD said:

Tim I think even the homeless would turn down a free Christmas meal with George Osborne

98% would choose a Barium meal rather than eat with George Osborne.

sticks and stones

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Just asked Mrs scrapheap if she'd like me to treat her to joining the Tory party as a Xmas present. Didn't go down particularly positively... honestly women are a mystery sometimes aren't they? spurs pj's it is then for her.

I'll surprise her and do both and maybe pay for our wills to be updated too... putty in my hands then.

Neil said:

isam said:

Neil said:

isam said:

Make a new law to make the punishment more severe

Punishment for what?

Running a Sharia Court

Ah, you want to make that a criminal offence? Interesting.

Yes indeed. I am surprised its not already.

Is it good for harmony in "diverse" places? Is it in the greater good to have one law for one and one for another?

Even Lord Lester, an architect of multiculturalism, sees it as an unwanted side effect of mass immigration

"the model we had was everyone would share the broad values of being British, what we did not expect was that there would be those who would unwisely suggest that, for example, Shariah Law should be applied in this country"

tim said:

Andrew Hawkins ‏@Andrew_ComRes 3m
ComRes/S Mirror/IoS: David Cameron tops poll for the politician people wd most want to deport to Australia http://ht.ly/rLLs1

Now obviously he's a useless fake shallow bloated fop-porpoise, but that seems a bit harsh, no one deserves that.

You seem a tad intemperate. Sticks and stones x2

Sean_F said:

isam said:

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

AndyJS said:

"allow people with civil disputes to opt out of out existing legal system"

Should never have been allowed to happen with any groups of people IMO. Once you concede the principle it's a slippery slope.

While I tend to agree, the problem is that - as you say - it's a slippery slope.

When you sign up to an on-line bookmaker (IIRC), then the T&Cs say that you cannot go through the UK legal system to resolve differences, and instead must use the Independent Betting Adjudication Service Ltd. In other words, you have chosen to opt out of the existing legal system. If you don't accept this opt-out, the bookmaker simply will not deal with you.

Now, if two Jewish traders in Golders Green agree to use their local Rabbinical Court for arbitration if a disagreement ensures, then surely it's their right?

(See where we're going with slippery...)

What about for a couple who get married in a Synagogue and agree as part of the marriage contract to refer any disagreements to the Rabbinical Court? (See: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed111507 for an example)

It's a tough one: if two people agree to use a non-state court for arbitration, then how can we stop them? The question I think is one of primacy - it should be impossible for said courts to over-rule the law of the state in any way, and there should always be the right to appeal to the courts of the land, and the courts of the land should have the right (but not the obligation) to ignore the decisions of non-state arbitration. But I think, IIRC, that that is roughly the state we're in now. One of our resident lawyers (Sean_F, life_in_a...) can probably enlighten us.

I think you're basically correct. Arbitration can't oust the jurisdiction of the courts. Nothing prevents a Muslim or Jewish woman from seeking a divorce before an English court. And her divorce is then valid according to English law. But, her own people may still deem her to be married. The civil law can't change that perception.

"But, her own people may still deem her to be married."

Precisely the point.

Shariah Law is only able to be suggested in places like Tower Hamlets because it has an audience. Supply & Demand transcends even the most divided & segregated of London Boroughs.

Excuse makers fuel the fire. It should be nipped in the bud. Make a new law to make the punishment more severe or else watch a country split into many fragments.. then what might happen I wonder....

I don't know how you can - or ought - to alter that.

In medieval Europe, Christian countries with Muslim or Jewish minorities granted wide powers to their religious leaders to govern them. That's not the case in UK. But, they still have moral authority. One can't legislate to make people think differently.

"One can't legislate to make people think differently"

Really?

Plenty of people are having a good go at it

tim said:

Andrew Hawkins ‏@Andrew_ComRes 3m
ComRes/S Mirror/IoS: David Cameron tops poll for the politician people wd most want to deport to Australia http://ht.ly/rLLs1

Now obviously he's a useless fake shallow bloated fop-porpoise, but that seems a bit harsh, no one deserves that.

More than 50% usually detest whoever is running the country.

tim said:

Quite like Spurs tomorrow at 6/4,should be evens
Also toying with a long odds home team treble, Villa and Norwich also look overpriced

For once I agree with you tim - Times Fink Tank gives Spurs 53% chance of win and that takes no account of injuries. No Gerrard and Liverpool are going to get over-run in midfield - I would give Spurs a 55% to 60% chance of winning.

But I would be careful of your treble because I doubt Man Utd will lose.

foxinsoxuk said:

Much better food on Leicesters Golden mile! :

http://www.greatfoodmag.co.uk/a-spicy-stroll-along-leicesters-golden-mile/

And it is Hindu, so no Choudhary dodging required!

Floater said:

Sean_F said:

antifrank said:

Anyone who has been to Brick Lane will know just how unlikely it is that it will go dry.

Have you ever visited the restaurant that has a mural of Princess Diana's head bursting out of the River Ganges?

I don't think I have ever had anything better than an average curry in Brick Lane.

Hate the hassle of the people trying to get you in their particular restaurant too.

If I am ever in the area will give it a go.

One of the guys who works for me and lives in Southend goes all the way to Warwick for the weekend several times a year justl to visit an excellent Indian Restaurant he found there

rcs1000 said:

isam said:

Yes indeed. I am surprised its not already.

I guess the problem would be one of 'scope'. Having a 'sharia' court that arbitrated over business disputes between Muslims on Brick Lane would be difficult to ban, as it would essentially be disallowing commercial entities from using arbitration.

Wouldn't the simplest way be say that non-official courts have arbitration power only, and only concerning commercial disputes, and that they specifically have no jurisdiction over matters of family law?

Even here, the issue - as Sean Fear rightly pointed out- is that you cannot stop Scientologists from going through a Scientology wedding ceremony and being recognised as married, even if only by the Scientology community. You can't legislate people's beliefs.

I'm not denying it is a complex problem, and of course I think it is the fault of politicians from long ago who allowed it to happen despite warnings.

The problem with a lot of the arguments I hear on the site is that they shy away from saying what the problem really is.. a few wacky idiots here and there are manageable, but Shariah Law is being taken seriously by the fastest growing religion in the country, one whose extremists don't recognise the difference between our military soldiers and themselves as self styled soldiers etc... to unwillingly coin a phrase, they don't play by the same rules as those which the UK is governed by. I fear reasonable people will be undone by their own reasonableness.

So a hard hitting, controversial law, or watch the place go up in smoke

More Enoch Im afraid, but this is the last part of a BBC documentary about his speech, and the talking heads are the Liberal intelligencia.. .Lord Lester, Frank Field... they are admitting they got it wrong, even Roy Jenkins is quoted as saying he got it wrong

I really recommend anyone interested in this subject watches this


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCgHh29Vhhg

More people would like to spend Christmas with Dave rather than Ed.

DC 11%

Ed 10%

Farage 9%

Clegg 8%

Ossy 1%

DK 60%

tim said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

tim said:

Andrew Hawkins ‏@Andrew_ComRes 3m
ComRes/S Mirror/IoS: David Cameron tops poll for the politician people wd most want to deport to Australia http://ht.ly/rLLs1

Now obviously he's a useless fake shallow bloated fop-porpoise, but that seems a bit harsh, no one deserves that.

You seem a tad intemperate. Sticks and stones x2

Quite like Spurs tomorrow at 6/4,should be evens
Also toying with a long odds home team treble, Villa and Norwich also look overpriced

Makes a change to agree with you and to hope you are right in a prediction.... massive if we do win against a top 10 team... I quite fancy us but it's spurs, you can always rely on then to let you down....

Who would you prefer to deport to better weather non-broken economy amazing landscape natural resources on tap Australia? As a punishment?
I'd deport me.

MrJones said:

isam said:

Neil said:

isam said:

Neil said:

isam said:

Make a new law to make the punishment more severe

Punishment for what?

Running a Sharia Court

Ah, you want to make that a criminal offence? Interesting.

Yes indeed. I am surprised its not already.

Is it good for harmony in "diverse" places? Is it in the greater good to have one law for one and one for another?

Even Lord Lester, an architect of multiculturalism, sees it as an unwanted side effect of mass immigration

"the model we had was everyone would share the broad values of being British, what we did not expect was that there would be those who would unwisely suggest that, for example, Shariah Law should be applied in this country"

Shame people like him didn't think about that before.

They were warned