Perhaps, but I still don't understand their logic. They WILLINGLY came over to another country, where they knew first hand that there is no such thing as 'sharia' , and all of the sudden they want it? Sorry but thats pushing it. Go back to your own country then. And in some ways, nothing they would like more than for others to comply with their beliefs.

I don't care if this does sound paranoid, but this to me like I said in my previous post, is almost like an extension of a caliphate in a non muslim country. Yet if you even visit their country, you are obliged by their laws, now they want to bring them to a non-muslim country? Sorry, but they can kindly fsck off as far as I'm concerned. I'm not against them having mosques, but when they start demanding their own laws in parallel with the country's own laws, this to me is pushing it; and if it were any other religion, I would still feel the same, but it just so happens that it is the muslims right now.

If I were a Briton, I would be fighting tooth-and-nail against this!

It is usually considered to be a bad idea to let the camel get away with sticking his nose in the tent.

I really don't get your perspective here. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't quite get it.

Name any religion anywhere in the world that doesn't have it's own 'laws". Just because a person moves from one country to another doesn't automatically mean they change their religion.

Do you understand what arbitration means? It has nothing at all to with changing any laws. It's a legal term recognized under most countries' laws. Union/company disputes are usually settled in arbitration hearings most of the time. The UN is based on the concept of arbitration.

All they have done is recognize these proceedings as legal arbitration. It's no different than allowing Judge Judy to decide your dog bite case instead of taking into an official government court.

It doesn't alter national laws in any way, so I really don't get the whole "UK committing suicide" concept here. Legal arbitration is not the same thing as a government court, it's just agreeing to allow a third party to hear both sides and make a decision that both parties agree to accept. Nothing more, nothing less.

Another description of agreeing to be subject to arbitration is "agreeing to give up some of your rights for the convenience of another". This thing with Sharia law is mostly about taking rights away from women.

It's also about the continued Balkanization of Western society. The pot didn't melt, and we wound up with places like Little China, Little Japan, and Dearborn Michigan where they play the calls to prayer over loud speakers. South Ossetia probably didn't mean much to you, because it was just another podunk little part of a podunk country far away. Imagine it happening here and suddenly it becomes critical that Georgia be helped in retaking their breakaway region.

On a good note, I think it was Toronto that refused to allow Sharia law earlier this year, or maybe last.

Georgian goverment attacked central Ossetian city, nearly destroyed it and killed 2000 civilans. And now you want to help them to region city back. Just great. You should have asked local population if they want to be part of Georgia first. Before you start arguing, here was short Ossetia-related discussion.

In earlier days, the South broke away from the US. Just as that couldn't be tolerated in the US, it can't be tolerated in Georgia. The people could have emigrated if they didn't want to be part of Georgia. Think about it, and if you can see a good reason for the US to allow, say Alaska, to become part of Russia, or Dearborn to become part of Saudi Arabia, just by vote, then go ahead and make your case.

Well, that is the point. If sharia law and British national laws were in alignment, there would be no push for sharia law.

Granting that arbitration makes sense in a lot of cases, those cases are cases where the dispute can be settled in accordance with the local laws in a fashion that doesn't involve the formality and expense of a courtroom.

Sharia law does NOT conform to British (or American) law, and one fundament of Sharia law is that not everyone is equal before the law; the gender differences and the religious distinctions show that clearly.

So it is hard to imagine a sharia court passing judgement on any but the most trivial of issues without violating British law. And yet, their judgements will now have the force of British law, in Britain.

One would presume that British courts would review the sharia judgments, but I think in this case it is time for a reality check; that isn't going to happen, for all kinds of reasons.

So, by allowing this to happen, Britain is creating one law for muslims and another law for everyone else. No nation can survive that; it is an impossible situation.

Strange enough for a Linux forum - some of you guys don't seem to know your microsoft.

The muslims in this country do not want to integrate. The only things they want are the handouts from the welfare state. They want to live in their own enclaves, use their own languages, dress, tribal customs, and laws. And the politically correct powers-that-be are bending over backwards to satisfy them. Of course it's wrong, but my opinions don't count for much - being English, white, and working-class.

While Alaska is part of US, Georgia is not US territory (so that is not US business), don't forget that. And as I remember from latest news Ossetians don't want to join Russia, they want to remain separate. Also ossetians lived on this territory for centuries, so of course they wouldn't leave their home.

There was this case in malaysia recently that got some publicity. A hindu woman had married a muslim man and had children. Either the man died or the couple divorced. Now the Shairiat law in that country is not allowing the woman to bring up her children how she wants.

End

OK, now explain to me how it's Russia's business, please.
Russians made quite a peculiar independent nation with the absolute majority of the population being Russian citizens, in desperate need of Russian "protection". Cool, isn't it?

For background, Erv is in Russia, and Uncle is from Russia.

Yeah, Dem Russkies, they're everywhere!!!

It is close-to border region. In case of USA closest neighbors (ground neighbors) are Canada, Mexico and two oceans. And from those neighbors oceans are definitely most unfriendly (sending hurricanes, etc).

Are you trying to say that USA doesn't care about its' citizens at all?

I will not discuss this conflict again. I made all my points/arguments in the link I've provided in reply to Quakeboy's post, I have nothing more to say, and I don't care about "new" opinions anymore. Now conflict isn't fresh anymore, all facts are gone (only speculations left), and the whole thing turned into political circus. If you truly interested in this situation and have several months of spare time, then feel free to dig news archives (search for articles written at the time of conflict, not several weeks later), this will make better picture of situation for you. Since you are from former USSR, I doubt you forgot russian language during last 10 years, so you'll have access to russian news sources.

--EDIT--

Oh, and about "protection". There were rumors about nationality based intolerance toward russians in certain ex-USSR regions. I do not know if it is true or not, but I have a friend who moved from far (non-caucasian) region and (I think) he accidentally mentioned that he did this becaus of nationality-based intolerance. Also certain countries acted a bit strange towards ex-WW2 heroes (remember "Bronze Soldier" story). So idea of protection seem logical. Feel free to check internet sources for more info.
--end of edit--

Back to the topic. AFAIK, in most constitutions people are supposed to be equal to the law, regardless of race/country/religion/sex. I do not see how having separate courts for every religion fits into this scheme.