Muslims in the UK

2gig

I've just watched a few videos by youtuber Pat Condell. His videos are primarily about the Muslim culture and its (according to him) increasing influence on British culture and politics. He's also stated that "polls show" that Britons are becoming increasingly concerned with this Muslim influence.

I myself am an American, and have no understanding of this issue outside of Pat's videos and an article on sharia courts that I found. This is why I am posting here. I'd love to hear the opinions of Smogon's own British population primarily, though everyone's insight is certainly appreciated. Please don't think that I'm posting this already prepared to stand by Pat's opinions, but at the same time I do want to hear more than just that he's wrong (if he is), I want to understand why. Perhaps this issue is more ambiguous than Pat's videos let on... Regardless, I want to hear from you, Smogon.

P.S. This sharia court business is really quite shocking. In my mind, the idea of legally binding courts here in the US whose decisions are based solely on Muslim law seems absurd, so I can't imagine why this is being allowed in the UK. While Pat Condell is just a man with a camera and a youtube channel, that article looked pretty legit. If I am being grossly misinformed, please let me know.
 
2gig said:
P.S. This sharia court business is really quite shocking. In my mind, the idea of legally binding courts here in the US whose decisions are based solely on Muslim law seems absurd, so I can't imagine why this is being allowed in the UK. While Pat Condell is just a man with a camera and a youtube channel, that article looked pretty legit. If I am being grossly misinformed, please let me know.
Click to expand...

Actually, the way that the sharia "courts" are legal, is also legal in the United States. It works under the arbitration idea, the idea that courts don't work well, and it works much better to have some third party look at the situation and solve it.

This idea has so many problems in practice, centered around the fact that if one person is more wealthy then the other, the arbitrator is more likely to decide in their favor, so that the person will use them again. Honestly, the system makes less sense then re-electing judges.

Also, I went and watched a couple of the guy's videos that you linked to, and rather then him being anti-Muslim or anything, he just seems like a stereotypical bitter atheist.
 
There's a TV show in the UK called 'Female Muslim Drivers' and it highlights how bad they are at driving. Everybody I know - even the muslims - love it.
I think the culture they bring is pretty nice (indian food will never beat chinese, however), and it means we all have a new rung on the ladder to point and laugh at when we feel bad.

Yeah, it is generally bitter racism, or someone bored and wants to express a view. Frankly, they're people like us, just let them get on with their lives. They're not walking around taking sweets from children or driving lorries into houses.
 
All the Muslims are in Pakistan, which used to be part of India until the 1950s.

Pat isn't just about Muslims, he is against all religions being involved with government(secularism). But since being anti-Muslim is in now, most people pick up on that part.
 
Ferrouswheel said:
Actually, the way that the sharia "courts" are legal, is also legal in the United States. It works under the arbitration idea, the idea that courts don't work well, and it works much better to have some third party look at the situation and solve it.

This idea has so many problems in practice, centered around the fact that if one person is more wealthy then the other, the arbitrator is more likely to decide in their favor, so that the person will use them again. Honestly, the system makes less sense then re-electing judges.

Also, I went and watched a couple of the guy's videos that you linked to, and rather then him being anti-Muslim or anything, he just seems like a stereotypical bitter atheist.
Click to expand...

Ah, I didn't realize that there were actually legally binding sharia courts here in the US. I thought that at least our right wing nutjobs like Glen Beck would throw a fit over it. I suppose Beck is too busy attacking the Obama administration, though. And obviously giving sharia courts any sort of legal influence at all.

ZystraL said:
There's a TV show in the UK called 'Female Muslim Drivers' and it highlights how bad they are at driving. Everybody I know - even the muslims - love it.
I think the culture they bring is pretty nice (indian food will never beat chinese, however), and it means we all have a new rung on the ladder to point and laugh at when we feel bad.

Yeah, it is generally bitter racism, or someone bored and wants to express a view. Frankly, they're people like us, just let them get on with their lives. They're not walking around taking sweets from children or driving lorries into houses.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the point a bit. I'm not so concerned about Muslims as individuals. There are plenty of Muslims here in the US, and I'm friends with quite a few Muslims. However, from what this guy on youtube is saying, it seems like Muslims have much more influence in British government than they do here in the US. I suppose I should've phrased my original post better, but I'm more concerned with Muslims in power in the UK, not the every day Muslim. I'm also interested in the response to what seems to be the British government catering to the Muslim faith (assuming that Pat Condell isn't lying about things like Halal meat in public school food, prayer rooms at work, and Muslim-only days for swimming pools).

Quaily said:
Pat isn't just about Muslims, he is against all religions being involved with government(secularism). But since being anti-Muslim is in now, most people pick up on that part.
Click to expand...
I picked up on that, but I'm more concerned with what he's saying, not why he's saying it.
 
I have yet to see any actually Muslim influence politically except from stupid extremists saying that we're going to have to live under Sharia Law blah blah. I can pretty much guarantee that we're not going to see stoning/chopping off hands any time soon.

I'm also interested in the response to what seems to be the British government catering to the Muslim faith (assuming that Pat Condell isn't lying about things like Halal meat in public school food, prayer rooms at work, and Muslim-only days for swimming pools).
Click to expand...

He's not lying about those.

I'm guessing that in places with high Muslim populations you get halal meat in public school food, I don't think so in my school and certainly you still get pork served anyway etc. It's not any different to having vegeterian/vegan options. The prayer rooms at work is more to do with a legal thing of not discriminating or preventing someone from practicising their faith regardless of religion. I know a leisure centre that has a Muslim only day on Sunday...I don't think it's even ordinarily open on a Sunday and I don't think they bar non-Muslims from going there (since that is illegal) it's more that they segregate the men from the women so it's more Muslim friendly.

I haven't looked at his videos but I'm willing to bet it's one of those people who have never set foot in the country hypothesising that we're going to be taken over by Muslims when they only make up 3-4% of the population.

EDIT: I also find it funny that you take a guy seriously that has a video entitled: "Is Satan a Catholic?".
 
Doesn't orthodox Judaism have a court system that may not completely follow, but at least consider the legal rulings of their religion?

My opinion is biased, I will say. I'm a muslim living in the US. But doesn't every culture of people affect their society and their politics? Homosexuality wouldn't be such a hot topic if it weren't for the homosexuals themselves.

Many laws of both the US and the UK are based off of Christian values, as these values are what many people share. So to single out one religion's rising influence in society, I think it's a bit unfair, when many Christian concepts are left alone.

Again, this is a biased opinion, defending my religion. I realize that. But if I were a politician, you would try to cater to as many people as possible, and as Islam being a rising demographic, it's only smart to take their (our) thoughts into consideration.
 
2gig said:
Ah, I didn't realize that there were actually legally binding sharia courts here in the US. I thought that at least our right wing nutjobs like Glen Beck would throw a fit over it. I suppose Beck is too busy attacking the Obama administration, though. And obviously giving sharia courts any sort of legal influence at all.
Click to expand...

You misunderstood what I meant. The Sharia courts in Britain operate under the Reconciliation idea. If you actually look at the legal principle instead of saying OMG SHARIA LAW, you'll see that the court is only binding if both sides have agreed to have it be reconciled by the court. It is essentially outsourcing of the courts to the private sector, something I am tremendously against regardless of whom is doing the judging. Under these principles in the United States, companies are able to whitewash their literal crimes by having them reconciled away.
 
Arbitration can't overrule criminal law. It can only apply to civil matters, most commonly relating to contract or tort issues. Judgment can only pertain to transfer of money and/or property; no criminal penalties can be imposed.

The TV show 'Judge Judy' is an arbitration service. An atypical example in many respects, but a prominent one.

There are advantages. Most operate by parties providing written statements, rather than appearing in person - an advantage to both parties if they are geographically separated. Arbitration is often cheaper. Judgments are usually final, providing quick closure and guarding both parties against the risk of massive costs due to multiple appeals. (Appeals can still happen if the arbiter overstepped their remit, or committed serious misconduct, or for a few other reasons, but they are less common than in the regular courts). There are of course also drawbacks - only being able to provide one written statement may result in omission of key facts, and the arbiter may be biased.

The main issue I see is whether consent is freely given. In the case of a dispute referred to a Sharia arbiter, it's hardly far-fetched that one party could be coerced into submitting to the arbitration. Another example might be if a standardised contract, for example the terms and conditions for a utilities company, requires the customer to refer any disputes that may arise to an industry arbiter - if the provider is a monopoly or all available providers are using similar terms, the customer has no choice.

On a closing note - why should two parties not be allowed to refer a dispute between them to a third party?
 
Also, the reason that arbitration works for things like Sharia is that they are constructed around what is essentially contract law, in that two (or more) people come to some mutual conclusion on what rules they want to follow. Thus the Sharia law is only binding if both parties agree that they are operating under sharia law (in so far as it doesn't conflict with enacted statute), which is fine, because it means that Sharia is not actually supplanting the law of the country, just supplementing it.
 
cantab said:
Arbitration can't overrule criminal law. It can only apply to civil matters, most commonly relating to contract or tort issues. Judgment can only pertain to transfer of money and/or property; no criminal penalties can be imposed.

The TV show 'Judge Judy' is an arbitration service. An atypical example in many respects, but a prominent one.

There are advantages. Most operate by parties providing written statements, rather than appearing in person - an advantage to both parties if they are geographically separated. Arbitration is often cheaper. Judgments are usually final, providing quick closure and guarding both parties against the risk of massive costs due to multiple appeals. (Appeals can still happen if the arbiter overstepped their remit, or committed serious misconduct, or for a few other reasons, but they are less common than in the regular courts). There are of course also drawbacks - only being able to provide one written statement may result in omission of key facts, and the arbiter may be biased.

The main issue I see is whether consent is freely given. In the case of a dispute referred to a Sharia arbiter, it's hardly far-fetched that one party could be coerced into submitting to the arbitration. Another example might be if a standardised contract, for example the terms and conditions for a utilities company, requires the customer to refer any disputes that may arise to an industry arbiter - if the provider is a monopoly or all available providers are using similar terms, the customer has no choice.

On a closing note - why should two parties not be allowed to refer a dispute between them to a third party?
Click to expand...

I don't object to the arbitration in the abstract, I object to its commercialization in practice. Essentially, I object to heightening the ability of corporations to influence the outcome of court cases about it's practices, such as this case.
 
Ferrouswheel said:
I don't object to the arbitration in the abstract, I object to its commercialization in practice. Essentially, I object to heightening the ability of corporations to influence the outcome of court cases about it's practices, such as this case.
Click to expand...

TBH, it's really not that much of an increase. Almost all commercial cases are settled outside of court anyway, and even in court, the wealthier party will almost always be able to gain the best outcome from their input position.
 
Everyone has watched videos by Pat Condell. The problem is that most people are just a bunch of bigots who have never actually read multiple translations of the Qu'ran.
 
I think there's quite a lot of Islamophobia in the UK, although I think there's more of it in the area where I live, because I live in quite a rich area, where people are quite bigoted sometimes.

I'm not a muslim myself, but I have many muslim friends, so I get quite angry when people can get hostile towards muslims. There's even a political party that's openly Islamophobic (and it's in the 10 most popular parties!).

There are some muslims (probably tens of thousands worldwide) that are murderers, and they're not nice people, but I do think it's unfair that the other 1.5 billion or so muslims would have to suffer, when they're actually the complete opposite, and are strongly against murder.

But I think people will become more tolerant of muslims in the future, as people come to realize that Christianity and Atheism aren't the only viable religions for the country.

Although I must say I'm worried that people can go on TV and proclaim that they hate muslims, and nobody care. If someone said they hate women/blacks/gays/etc there'd be an uproar (which is good, but I think muslims, and people of other religions should get the same support).
 
Living in an area of Brittain where there are probably more Muslims than any other religion in the area, except the hard-assed teens who insist on being ghetto, there isn't really much of an impact on culture really, it always initially puzzles me when people bring up a mix of cultures as something strange until i realise its not the norm eleswhere. The biggest impact is the BNP screaming everywhere.

And i will always love curry ^^
 
Ferrouswheel said:
I don't object to the arbitration in the abstract, I object to its commercialization in practice. Essentially, I object to heightening the ability of corporations to influence the outcome of court cases about it's practices, such as this case.
Click to expand...

Yes, it really is ridiculous that companies can force their employees to give up constitutional rights. I have never been a fan of arbitration either because, like you mentioned, there really is no such thing as an outside, unbiased moderator.
 
a unstopable mercinary said:
Yes, it really is ridiculous that companies can force their employees to give up constitutional rights. I have never been a fan of arbitration either because, like you mentioned, there really is no such thing as an outside, unbiased moderator.
Click to expand...

The whole forfeit of the constitutional rights is in the courts right now. However, you shouldn't have to go to court to get your day in court.
 
Why and how was that case forcibly turned over to an arbitrary court? I thought both parties had to consent to having their case heard in an arbitrary court...
 
2gig said:
Why and how was that case forcibly turned over to an arbitrary court? I thought both parties had to consent to having their case heard in an arbitrary court...
Click to expand...

It was in the employee agreement that they had to use the arbitration courts, IIRC.
 
What he said. A growing number of companies make you sign agreements that say you will not sue them in the instance of a dispute; rather, you acquiesce to have it submitted to an "outside" "third party" arbitrator. You know, someone in their pocket. This is also often the case when you order merchandise off the internet, or when you agree to the terms and conditions of a new piece of software.

But that's enough derailing.
 
British Muslim here (though I do not like to admit it).

Let me first say I am utterly sick and tired not only of extremist Muslims hell-bent on bringing Sharia Law to Britain, but also of those who resort to "here's a Quranic verse to refute your argument *lists a dozen*!" or "ask Imam he will tell you answer!!!!" whenever asked a particularly difficult question on Islam. For one thing, most Imams in Britain have such biased, varied and stubborn views I wouldn't be surprised if two of them fought to the death in furious Steel Cage action over something as stupid as the Hijab. If most Muslims (especially migrants in the UK) had an ounce of humility in them, just enough to say, "Hmm, I don't know, I'm not a scholar! just a follower", avoided trying to coerce people to think about following Islam or stopped badmouthing all Americans for KILLING MUSLIMS EVERYWHERE (because obviously Muslims have never killed anyone else! Especially not our fellow Muslims daily in several different countries! nope) we could avoid a hell of a lot of persecution by Western society.

Secondly people are certainly unnecessarily mean to Muslims but it is also vice-versa. I can't count the number of times my parents have said something rude about Indians, Jews or black people. Everybody's a little bit racist/religionist if that's a word! (source)
Also I am probably one of the worst Muslims imaginable (I am drinking Magners right now) but I still manage to go to the mosque at least on Fridays, and get to listen to the Imams speak. Here in the UK at least they have the tendency to be a bit too extreme and say some pretty...controversial things, to put it lightly. I am honestly not surprised that there's been an exponential increase in Islamophobia over the past couple of years, and it's almost all because we are really up ourselves; flaunting our heritage all over the place, all "holier than thou" and "it's all a gigantic zionist conspiracy!!! Pepsi? Pay Every Penny to Save Israel! SEE???" Hate breeds hate, or whatever the saying is. Islam certainly doesn't seem like the religion of peace these days, although it should be. Man, I don't even know why I bother calling myself a Muslim these days. Will probably get me into shedloads of trouble in the long run. I don't even believe in God. ah well.

tldr; Us Muslims should look at ourselves in the mirror before spouting hate-filled nonsense, including but not limited to Sharia Law, which, I'm afraid to say, is quite outdated
 
a unstopable mercinary said:
What he said. A growing number of companies make you sign agreements that say you will not sue them in the instance of a dispute; rather, you acquiesce to have it submitted to an "outside" "third party" arbitrator. You know, someone in their pocket. This is also often the case when you order merchandise off the internet, or when you agree to the terms and conditions of a new piece of software.

But that's enough derailing.
Click to expand...

In the case of a dispute over the something in the contract itself, however, since the dispute repudiates the contract outright, you might as well disregard the arbitration clause and sue in the full court if you're worried about independence. If you turn out to be correct, the contract may be void/voidable/terminated which means you won't be bound by the no-suit agreement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top