European Migrant Crisis Megathread

[Bratislavskaya]

That's irrelevant, did you read the article or just dismiss it? It might be a biased source, but it cites multiple sources, including interviews with French mayors and politicians.

It's not irrelevant at all, a biased source is a biased source, no matter how many footnotes it has.

[Tierra Prime]

That's irrelevant, did you read the article or just dismiss it? It might be a biased source, but it cites multiple sources, including interviews with French mayors and politicians.

It's not irrelevant at all, a biased source is a biased source, no matter how many footnotes it has.

Just because it's biased doesn't make what it says incorrect, that's why it's irrelevant.

Every person and every group is biased in some way, so all opinions are incorrect, yes?

[Bratislavskaya]

It's not irrelevant at all, a biased source is a biased source, no matter how many footnotes it has.

Just because it's biased doesn't make what it says incorrect, that's why it's irrelevant.

It does mean that they will have selectively chosen evidence, not covering the entire story, or massively misrepresenting the entire situation.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

"Outrage: Arbitration also available to people who follow a religion of which I disapprove"

[Tierra Prime]

Just because it's biased doesn't make what it says incorrect, that's why it's irrelevant.

It does mean that they will have selectively chosen evidence, not covering the entire story, or massively misrepresenting the entire situation.

The article cited sources and articles that attempted to dispel Sharia zones as a myth, and then gave opinions on why they are wrong.

[Tierra Prime]

"Outrage: Arbitration also available to people who follow a religion of which I disapprove"

Do you see Christian specific courts offering arbitration that can be enforced by the High Court?

[Gravlen]

From reading the Wikipedia article, it doesn't seem like these courts can do anything of real note.

They still exist as sanctioned legal bodies.

They can only rule on Muslim divorces and family matters, but that's already too much.

Civil law exists for a reason. There aren't Christian-specific courts in secular countries, so why are Islamic courts needed?

Actually, there are.

Example:

Across the United States, religious courts operate on a routine, everyday basis. The Roman Catholic Church alone has nearly 200 diocesan tribunals that handle a variety of cases, including an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 marriage annulments each year. In addition, many Orthodox Jews use rabbinical courts to obtain religious divorces, resolve business conflicts and settle other disputes with fellow Jews. Similarly, many Muslims appeal to Islamic clerics to resolve marital disputes and other disagreements with fellow Muslims.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/08/applying-gods-law-religious-courts-and-mediation-in-the-us/

[Eol Sha]

They still exist as sanctioned legal bodies.

They can only rule on Muslim divorces and family matters, but that's already too much.

Civil law exists for a reason. There aren't Christian-specific courts in secular countries, so why are Islamic courts needed?

Actually, there are.

Example:

Across the United States, religious courts operate on a routine, everyday basis. The Roman Catholic Church alone has nearly 200 diocesan tribunals that handle a variety of cases, including an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 marriage annulments each year. In addition, many Orthodox Jews use rabbinical courts to obtain religious divorces, resolve business conflicts and settle other disputes with fellow Jews. Similarly, many Muslims appeal to Islamic clerics to resolve marital disputes and other disagreements with fellow Muslims.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/08/applying-gods-law-religious-courts-and-mediation-in-the-us/

Fascinating. I did not know about this aspect of American society. I've also found myself to not be as offended as I thought I might be.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

"Outrage: Arbitration also available to people who follow a religion of which I disapprove"

Do you see Christian specific courts offering arbitration that can be enforced by the High Court?

If by "courts" you mean arbitration services, then yes:

Resolve
http://www.christianmediation.org.uk/

Also a Jewish one, Beth Din:

http://come-and-hear.com/editor/beth-di ... index.html

[Tierra Prime]

They still exist as sanctioned legal bodies.

They can only rule on Muslim divorces and family matters, but that's already too much.

Civil law exists for a reason. There aren't Christian-specific courts in secular countries, so why are Islamic courts needed?

Actually, there are.

Example:

Across the United States, religious courts operate on a routine, everyday basis. The Roman Catholic Church alone has nearly 200 diocesan tribunals that handle a variety of cases, including an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 marriage annulments each year. In addition, many Orthodox Jews use rabbinical courts to obtain religious divorces, resolve business conflicts and settle other disputes with fellow Jews. Similarly, many Muslims appeal to Islamic clerics to resolve marital disputes and other disagreements with fellow Muslims.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/08/applying-gods-law-religious-courts-and-mediation-in-the-us/

Are those courts grounded in legislation however?

[Tierra Prime]

Do you see Christian specific courts offering arbitration that can be enforced by the High Court?

If by "courts" you mean arbitration services, then yes:

Resolve
http://www.christianmediation.org.uk/

Also a Jewish one, Beth Din:

http://come-and-hear.com/editor/beth-di ... index.html

I am aware unofficial courts exist, but I'm talking about the MAT and it's status in legislation.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

If by "courts" you mean arbitration services, then yes:

Resolve
http://www.christianmediation.org.uk/

Also a Jewish one, Beth Din:

http://come-and-hear.com/editor/beth-di ... index.html

I am aware unofficial courts exist, but I'm talking about the MAT and it's status in legislation.

MAT?

These services exist because of, as I understand it, the Arbitration Act, which allows arbitration services as long as all parties agree.
As far as I can tell, they're exactly the same as the evil Muslim "courts" you're so upset about.

EDIT: Just found the "Muslim Arbitration Tribunal". Yes, it's the same thing.

[Tierra Prime]

I am aware unofficial courts exist, but I'm talking about the MAT and it's status in legislation.

MAT?

These services exist because of, as I understand it, the Arbitration Act, which allows arbitration services as long as all parties agree.
As far as I can tell, they're exactly the same as the evil Muslim "courts" you're so upset about.

Muslim Arbitration Tribunal.

Did I say they were somehow evil? No, so stop trying to paint me as something I'm not.

It allows arbitration services, yes, but it also allows a religious arbitration service that values women as lesser than men to exist in an official manner.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

MAT?

These services exist because of, as I understand it, the Arbitration Act, which allows arbitration services as long as all parties agree.
As far as I can tell, they're exactly the same as the evil Muslim "courts" you're so upset about.

Muslim Arbitration Tribunal.

Did I say they were somehow evil? No, so stop trying to paint me as something I'm not.

It allows arbitration services, yes, but it also allows a religious arbitration service that values women as lesser than men to exist in an official manner.

I've just taken a quick look at MAT's website. Assuming they're not outright lying about the kind of service they provide, they're quite progressive:

A common problem faced by Muslim women is the request for an Islamic divorce from the husband. The wife may obtain a divorce in the civil courts however her husband may continue to deny her the Islamic divorce. As a result she may face stigma from the community, thus preventing her from re-marrying.

MAT provides an effective service for women seeking to obtain an Islamic divorce by way of Khula through the consent and co-operation of the husband. MAT can successfully issue a Khula certificate within 3-4 months.

In the absence of the consent and/or co-operation of the husband, MAT can issue a declaration that the marriage is dissolved (Faskh) should the panel of experts be satisfied that the necessary requirements are met.

Remember these services can only be used with the consent of both parties.

[Tierra Prime]

Muslim Arbitration Tribunal.

Did I say they were somehow evil? No, so stop trying to paint me as something I'm not.

It allows arbitration services, yes, but it also allows a religious arbitration service that values women as lesser than men to exist in an official manner.

I've just taken a quick look at MAT's website. Assuming they're not outright lying about the kind of service they provide, they're quite progressive:

A common problem faced by Muslim women is the request for an Islamic divorce from the husband. The wife may obtain a divorce in the civil courts however her husband may continue to deny her the Islamic divorce. As a result she may face stigma from the community, thus preventing her from re-marrying.

MAT provides an effective service for women seeking to obtain an Islamic divorce by way of Khula through the consent and co-operation of the husband. MAT can successfully issue a Khula certificate within 3-4 months.

In the absence of the consent and/or co-operation of the husband, MAT can issue a declaration that the marriage is dissolved (Faskh) should the panel of experts be satisfied that the necessary requirements are met.

Remember these services can only be used with the consent of both parties.

They are by their own account, but the "Islamic Sacred law" the MAT uses treats women lesser than men.

Panorama is supposed to have find evidence that MAT treats women unfairly when it comes to divorces, but can its opinion be trusted?

Overall, my opinion is that religious courts, when enshrined in law like the MAT is, are dangerous to continuing secularism, even if they are only arbitration groups.

Read this also: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/mar/ ... ria-law-uk

[Gravlen]

Actually, there are.

Example:

Across the United States, religious courts operate on a routine, everyday basis. The Roman Catholic Church alone has nearly 200 diocesan tribunals that handle a variety of cases, including an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 marriage annulments each year. In addition, many Orthodox Jews use rabbinical courts to obtain religious divorces, resolve business conflicts and settle other disputes with fellow Jews. Similarly, many Muslims appeal to Islamic clerics to resolve marital disputes and other disagreements with fellow Muslims.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/08/applying-gods-law-religious-courts-and-mediation-in-the-us/

Are those courts grounded in legislation however?

It's the same for "Christian-specific courts" as it is for "Islamic-specific courts". In the UK the arbitration act allows for a wide variety of religious (and non-religious) courts.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

I've just taken a quick look at MAT's website. Assuming they're not outright lying about the kind of service they provide, they're quite progressive:



Remember these services can only be used with the consent of both parties.

They are by their own account, but the "Islamic Sacred law" the MAT uses treats women lesser than men.

Panorama is supposed to have find evidence that MAT treats women unfairly when it comes to divorces, but can its opinion be trusted?

Overall, my opinion is that religious courts, when enshrined in law like the MAT is, are dangerous to continuing secularism, even if they are only arbitration groups.

Read this also: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/mar/ ... ria-law-uk

Personally, I'd prefer it if people didn't choose to use religious arbitration services, but they're hardly a threat to anything.

That article is scary though:

"Last year, more than 20 non-Muslims chose to arbitrate cases"

That is literally tens, TENS of people using these services, of their own free will. That's an entire, uh, small roomful of people exercising their personal liberty in a strange but basically harmless manner.

Remember, these "courts" as you misleadingly term them, cannot be used unless all parties agree, and cannot make a ruling that defies UK law.

Also, you never clearly stated whether you were opposed to these same services being run by Jews or Christians.

[Gravlen]

Interesting article:

Mass Migration: What Is Driving the Balkan Exodus?

[Imperializt Russia]

That's a school classroom a year. Less than.

[Tierra Prime]

They are by their own account, but the "Islamic Sacred law" the MAT uses treats women lesser than men.

Panorama is supposed to have find evidence that MAT treats women unfairly when it comes to divorces, but can its opinion be trusted?

Overall, my opinion is that religious courts, when enshrined in law like the MAT is, are dangerous to continuing secularism, even if they are only arbitration groups.

Read this also: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/mar/ ... ria-law-uk

Personally, I'd prefer it if people didn't choose to use religious arbitration services, but they're hardly a threat to anything.

That article is scary though:

"Last year, more than 20 non-Muslims chose to arbitrate cases"

That is literally tens, TENS of people using these services, of their own free will. That's an entire, uh, small roomful of people exercising their personal liberty in a strange but basically harmless manner.

Remember, these "courts" as you misleadingly term them, cannot be used unless all parties agree, and cannot make a ruling that defies UK law.

Also, you never clearly stated whether you were opposed to these same services being run by Jews or Christians.

I did, I said all religious courts are, in my opinion, wrong. Why would you need anything other than civil courts?

It's not their popularity that matters, its the precedence they are setting. They might be small now, but will they be in the future, as immigration continues?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Sure it is. 'Germany' itself didn't exist before 1871, after all. Before that it was a collection of states speaking languages and utilizing cultures of varying degrees of relatedness, with significant minorities speaking languages like Sorbian, Czech, Polish, Frisian and Danish. Then there's the continuum between Low and High German dialects, which some argue linguists could be strong enough to constitute a couple of different distinct languages.

The extent to which the German government opposed/supported those cultures may have varied, but 'German' culture has always been multicultural.

The culture throughout what was considered Germany was more or less universal. they where all of the same culture (German or Germanic) and spoke the same language. Obviously due to the political situation national borders often incorporated non-German speakers and ethnicities. But overall the lands called "Germany" was culturally United. Politically and economically that is a different story.

It's like Kulturkampf never was a thing.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Personally, I'd prefer it if people didn't choose to use religious arbitration services, but they're hardly a threat to anything.

That article is scary though:

"Last year, more than 20 non-Muslims chose to arbitrate cases"

That is literally tens, TENS of people using these services, of their own free will. That's an entire, uh, small roomful of people exercising their personal liberty in a strange but basically harmless manner.

Remember, these "courts" as you misleadingly term them, cannot be used unless all parties agree, and cannot make a ruling that defies UK law.

Also, you never clearly stated whether you were opposed to these same services being run by Jews or Christians.

I did, I said all religious courts are, in my opinion, wrong. Why would you need anything other than civil courts?

It's not their popularity that matters, its the precedence they are setting. They might be small now, but will they be in the future, as immigration continues?

Even if they grow "as immigration continues" (no evidence of this, and considering that the MAT apparently dealt with a mere 100 cases in it's first year, it's unlikely), they will still only be used by those who consent to their use, and still won't be able to breach UK law. You still haven't explained how they're a problem.

Just to be very clear (again) the precedent they're setting is this:
If you want a dispute settled in accordance with your religious beliefs, and all other parties consent, you may get a private service to make a ruling, as long as that ruling does not breach UK law.

[Rio Cana]

Interesting article:

Mass Migration: What Is Driving the Balkan Exodus?

In a prior page , I posted an article about the Germans deporting Albanians.

Seems the Balkans will not get a break from most of the EU. They really need to get together when it comes to dealing with the EU. and other international things. Greece should also join. Maybe then will they be better noticed and treated.

[Tierra Prime]

I did, I said all religious courts are, in my opinion, wrong. Why would you need anything other than civil courts?

It's not their popularity that matters, its the precedence they are setting. They might be small now, but will they be in the future, as immigration continues?

Even if they grow "as immigration continues" (no evidence of this, and considering that the MAT apparently dealt with a mere 100 cases in it's first year, it's unlikely), they will still only be used by those who consent to their use, and still won't be able to breach UK law. You still haven't explained how they're a problem.

Just to be very clear (again) the precedent they're setting is this:
If you want a dispute settled in accordance with your religious beliefs, and all other parties consent, you may get a private service to make a ruling, as long as that ruling does not breach UK law.

So you're saying immigration won't continue then?

They are a problem because they attempt to tie religion into the law.

[Geilinor]

"Outrage: Arbitration also available to people who follow a religion of which I disapprove"

Do you see Christian specific courts offering arbitration that can be enforced by the High Court?

They aren't illegal, nobody is stopping one.