http://www.welt.de/regionales/nrw/article149791705/Scharia-Polizei-nicht-strafbar.html
>>51898851
Post a link with an actual non barbaric language
>>51898851
>Sharia courts in the UK
>Sharia police in Germany
Please please please please PLEASE let FN win the presidential elections before this insanity spreads even further.
so what happen if they catch you drinking or fucking a human being? what they do?
in that case guys dressing up as the knights templar and enforcing their religious law on people should be fine too.
>Non nobis Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam
Is this real?
>>51899416
>Sharia courts in the UK
There are no sharia courts, such a thing would be illegal. Youre referring to the part of the law which states that in some cases two parties may agree on an arbitrator that isnt a state court. In other words youre retarded m8, if you think freedom is bad then youre a total kek.
>the judge's verdict was literally - LITERALLY - "they dindu nuffin"
W E W
E
W
>>51900007
>"S-sure, if we only allow the parts of Sharia that aren't directly in contradiction to the Constitution, w-we'll surely have something that works"
No matter how you twist or turn it, it's sharia being tolerated in legal affairs.
>>51900152
>No matter how you twist or turn it, it's sharia being tolerated in legal affairs.
Its not legal affairs though, as I just clearly told you. Its there precisely so not everything has to be decided legally.
>>51898851
ХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХA
ХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХA
ХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХA
ХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХA
ХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХAХA
top kek
>>51898851
It just says that their vests don't violate uniformation laws. Stop makingg shit up.
>>51898851
Can they also start their own anti sharia police?
>>51900463
What is he making up?
>>51900197
>Arbitration tribunals are not part of the legal system
Uh-huh, sure thing m8.
>>51901329
Arbitrations and mediations are completely different things you idiot.
>>51901676
Which prevents them from being legal decisions how exactly?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration
>A third party reviews the evidence in the case and imposes a decision that is legally binding on both sides and enforceable in the courts.[1]
Sharia law can lead to legally binding decisions in the UK, get rekt.
>>51898851
what is wrong with yuropoor countries?
>>51901781
>I have no idea what I am talking about so I had better copy and paste a sentence from wikipedia that isnt talking about english/welsh law
An arbitration is a part of common law conducted by someone qualified; a mediation is not and has not got to take into account common law or the law at all in any point in the mediation and neither does it have to have a qualified official.
Just admit that you have absoloutely no idea
The ride never ends
>>51901953
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Arbitration_Tribunal
>Muslim Arbitration Tribunal
>Set up under the Arbitration Act
>Is recognized by the Arbitration Act as an Arbitration Tribunal
>Somehow this is not arbitration
More bullshit please!
>B-but muh wikipedia tho mufugga bix nood we wuz nobles n shiet
http://www.matribunal.com/arbitration-act.php
http://www.matribunal.com/values-and-principles.php
>The Islamic principle of justice (‘Adl) underpins all activities of MAT and is integral to the decisions made in all disputes.
I'd tell you to cry me a river, but you'd probably flood my country.
hahahahahaa
fucking hell, we're next lads.
>>51900007
Except there are.
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/jul/05/sharia-law-religious-courts
In truth they exist solely to deprive women of rights.
>>51902240
Except this isnt a sharia court and it doesnt enforce sharia law AND it wont be allowed to as its under common law. Mediation is the only way you can as I so said before and its not legal as you were claiming. Youre just digging your hole deeper m8
>>51898851
The article is only saying that you can't arrest them for wearing vests with "sharia police" on them as long as they don't do anything.
>>51902349
>Except this isnt a sharia court
It is
>and it doesnt enforce sharia law
It does. Perhaps not all of it, but by the admission of the MAT itself all decisions are guided by the Islamic definition of Justice rather than constitutional principles
>AND it wont be allowed to as its under common law
Except its decisions are legally binding and can be enforced in secular courts of law.
>Mediation is the only way you can
Except the Muslim ARBITRATION Tribunal has been set up under the ARBITRATION Act.
Refusing to refer to an Arbitration Tribunal as an Arbitration Tribunal is like refusing to refer to a man as a man. But even that is catching on in the UK so who am I to judge?
>>51902349
>>51902240
The britbong is right. Just stop m8
>>51902599
>The britbong is right
If that's the case, I'd like to see him prove at least one of the following:
>There are no Muslim Arbitration Tribunals in the UK
>Muslim Abitration Tribunals do not apply Islamic law in any way, shape or form
>Muslim Arbitration Tribunals cannot make legally binding decisions
If he can prove at least one of these three with a credible source, I'll shut up. Until then I'll mock until I can mock no more.
>>51898851
europe is a fucking joke
>>51902740
>europe is one country
You americans need to stop with this.
>>51902778
Hey, now! The US of A ain't one country either! It's a union of fifty states, each with its own culture and everything!
>>51902543
>Muslim ARBITRATION Tribunal
Operates completely under english law. Rulings contrary to english law arent allowed
YALL YUROS NEED TONES THE BONES STOP DA BOATS YALL
good
first we let them destroy themselves
then we elect FN
and then we can blitzkrieg the shit out of them
>>51902877
>Operates completely under english law.
>Completely
By its own admission the MAT is inspired by Islam and can make Islamic (read: Sharia) inspired decisions that are legally binding and can be enforced by secular courts.
It's only technically true that it "operates completely under English law", in the sense that the British Arbitration Act has deemed its existence legal and its decisions binding.
This isn't a dickmeasuring contest, m8. Just because your country is being run like shit doesn't mean I hate you as a person. Get over it and stop resisting the truth with nigh-Jihadist fervour.
>>51902823
>implying its not
>fuck you
>>51902542
So can I wear a suit of a middle age crusader?
>>51903132
Theyre only legally binding in the sense that they follow english law and apply it. Any application outside of the boundries of english law is not legally binding. The only way you can make rulings outside of english law is to use a mediation. Also we have no 'constitutional principles' as we have no single constitutional document as the constitution is the sum of all of our laws. I hope I have made the obvious as clear and brief as possible because you clearly dont understand common law at all.
>>51902992
Are the french getting revenge?
>>51902877
Law is like a shaft of a cart, it points wherever you turn it to
>>51900537
OP wrote sharia police is "fully legal" but that's a lie. It just says that it's not illegal to wear those orange vests they have on in the picture. They still can't enfore Sharia.
>>51903288
>Theyre only legally binding in the sense that they follow english law and apply it.
http://www.matribunal.com/values-and-principles.php
>Justice: The Islamic principle of justice (‘Adl) underpins all activities of MAT and is integral to the decisions made in all disputes.
Just because they apply their Islamic principles within the limits of English law does not mean they do not apply Islamic law in their legally binding decisions.
I have cited enough sources and you have cited none. Are you sure you're not the one who doesn't understand the law? You're the guy who tried to argue that an Arbitration Tribunal doesn't do arbitration, after all.
>>51902823
They have different pizza toppings in every state!
>>51903516
It doesnt matter what they say, if it is a decision made against common law then it is not legally binding.
>You're the guy who tried to argue that an Arbitration Tribunal doesn't do arbitration, after all.
I was trying to inform you that the only way to make decisions that are contrary to english law is to do them in mediations which arent legally binding. I think this is about the third time now that Ive told you that mediations and arbitrations arent the same thing.
>>51903328
Revenge for what? Losing WW2 twice but still getting land and reparations from Germany?
>>51903669
>if it is a decision made against common law then it is not legally binding.
That applies to secular courts as well. I don't see how this contradicts anything I've said.
>I was trying to inform you that the only way to make decisions that are contrary to english law is to do them in mediations
Again, this has nothing to do with what I said.
>I think this is about the third time now that Ive told you that mediations and arbitrations arent the same thing.
You were the only one who brought up mediations in a complete red herring which, for the third time, had nothing to do with what I said.
>>51903328
yes
>>51903706
if you end up getting land and reparations you haven't really lost
it's like the jews
was the holocaust really a loss for the jewish people ?
of course not it was a fucking blessing
well here it is the same
Should have used the nukes on Germany instead desu
>>51903780
>That applies to secular courts as well. I don't see how this contradicts anything I've said.
You dont understand how common law works. Judges in state courts can make new decisions that change the law. Im not sure bout private courts, but we are not talking about those and they are never used. Arbitrations merely dispense the law according to what statutes and previous cases say and cannot make it up as they go along. If they make a ruling that is contrary to common law then it is not legally binding. So yes in fact normal courts can because they arent arbitrations.
>Again, this has nothing to do with what I said.
I assumed at first you were getting mixed up but you are going on about arbitrations in which you are no way correct. At least in mediations what you talked about would be allowed even if it is not within the law as you specified, arbitrations can only follow english law.
>>51903928
I'll ask it again: how does this change the fact that there is a Muslim Tribunals in the UK which can make legally binding decisions which are inspired, by its own admission, by Islamic concepts?
The only thing you're arguing here is that "it's not that bad". You're not refuting anything.
>>51904033
>how does this change the fact that there is a Muslim Tribunals in the UK which can make legally binding decisions which are inspired, by its own admission, by Islamic concepts?
Because I just disproved it several times. Just because you dont understand the system despite me explaining it fully multiple times it doesnt mean your point is correct.
>The only thing you're arguing here is that "it's not that bad"
I have not once made a remark anywhere near this and have in fact completely disproved your point, which you have not even tried to back up and have only repeated over and over again.
>>51899945
no, they were charged. This is completely wrong.
>>51904213
>Because I just disproved it several times.
How? You neither disproved the existence of the MAT, nor disproved that it can make legally binding decisions, nor disproved that its decisions are inspired by Islamic principles.
>>51904518
>How? You neither disproved the existence of the MAT, nor disproved that it can make legally binding decisions, nor disproved that its decisions are inspired by Islamic principles.
I did. I explained that as an arbitration they are only allowed to make rulings completely withing the english common law legal system and that any rulings outside of this arent legally binding. There is no need to disprove their existance as they completely follow my argument.
>>51904625
>I explained that as an arbitration they are only allowed to make rulings completely withing the english common law legal system and that any rulings outside of this arent legally binding.
Which disproves... what exactly? Which of my three points does this even disprove?
>>51898851
I would throw eggs at those fuckers if I ever saw one, this is fucking insane.
Meanwhile Merkel is person of the year.
>>51904676
>Which disproves... what exactly? Which of my three points does this even disprove?
Your point was this
>By its own admission the MAT is inspired by Islam and can make Islamic (read: Sharia) inspired decisions that are legally binding and can be enforced by secular courts.
First of all that first paragraph is misleading. They can only make legally binding decisions when it is within the english common law system. Your point is that when they both agree on something they can use sharia law, which makes no sense. If french and english law both agree on something independently it does not mean that we have made french law legal. They have to be completely within the english common law and sharia law has no bearing on whether it is legal or not which I have already explained.
>It's only technically true that it "operates completely under English law", in the sense that the British Arbitration Act has deemed its existence legal and its decisions binding.
As I explain yet again, as an arbitration their decisions are only binding when they operate within english law. If they rule something completely different it is not legally binding at all, and if it falls within english law I would like to refer you to the similie I used at the end of the last paragraph. I would prefer not having to repeat this for the fourth or fifth time.
>>51898851
GERMANY YES
Anyone have a Germany version of this?
>>51902778
>implying he said that
>implying it actually matters whether they are
what the fuck is this? never heard about them.. what do they do?
