To almost feel a shred of sympathy for Tommy Robinson

I support there being private arbitration fora that our law will enforce, including for commercial disputes and religious cases.

That feels like the liberal thing to me, letting people contract into mechanisms that make sense to them.

There is a liberal dilemma there though, if people there are not truly freely contracting in, or if the decisions are too offensive to more fundamental principles (e.g. one can consent to be beaten, up to a point, which I agree with. But I would object to a court that sentenced homosexuals to be beaten, even if they had contracted in freely).

I think it's worth keeping an eye on, but I don't think the correct number of Sharia courts right now is zero, just like I don't think the correct number of beth din or commercial arbitration services is zero.

People aren’t “taken to it” though.

It’s civil arbitration and you have to agree to it.

Well if the little weasel faced cunt hadn't been coked up to his eyeballs he may have presented a decent argument, as it was, he deserved everything he got.

1. I didn’t say Islam and any form of Protestantism were the same, just that they both opposed idolatry
2. Far, far from all Muslims “kill gays and stone women” - you’re talking about some countries that regard themselves as Muslim
3. The old testament (so part of the Christian Bible) instructs followers to stone various people, sell daughters into slavery etc So if you to took it literally you would be in that position.
4. Some Protestant denominations, especially those practiced in parts of the US, come pretty close - deliberately allowing women to die of sepsis to avoid anything resembling “abortion” for example. Not letting Catholics off the hook here, but they do love a good statue so didn’t come into this comparison.

So don’t come at me with your straw men and “comfy little thoughts” - when in fact it is you who are indulging in “comfy little thoughts”, my sweet summer child (as they say).

It really is worth watching the whole thing, rather than the carefully edited 'TR DESTROYED at the Oxford Union' or 'Muslims DESTROYED by TR at the Oxford Union' clips.

Safeguarding reasons and parallel systems, mainly. In closed communities, women can suffer when seeking a divorce on the grounds of domestic violence.

Yes.

Trying to ridicule or dismiss all TR's arguments is terribly counterproductive tactically as well.

If all sides said: "Yes, we think [x, y, z terrible thing that virtually all secular Westerners disagree with] is terrible, and we are concerned to see support for some of that rising" then what would distinguish TR from others is only how he proposes to deal with it and whether he's an attractive figure. I think he loses that contest.

If the other sides are saying "[terrible thing] is irrelevant or not happening or not a problem" then you leave TR as the only one saying it is. He's going to win that contest, because x, y, z is terrible and most normies will agree that it is.

Its a word we use, I dont know what the Arabic exact translation for that is?

After all, you're not questioning the word 'food court' or 'tennis court' are you?

I have actually met him many many years ago. He was always kind and polite until his family member was badly abused amongst other things.

not seen him for a very long time though.

Many already are.

The actual conflict now is between the native anglophere men and women who simply install diversity barriers in public to try to minimise the killings whilst explaining this is a strength, and those who would prefer not to have this strength here.

When you say this, what do you have in mind?

He's a malignant grifter.

I am not arguing for something so i'm asking questions of those that are.

What value do they bring to the UK which already has its own laws if it is not running an alternative to UK law?

Why call itself a court if it is not passing judgement and is more lkke mumsnet than an actual court?

Do any women get to sit on these courts? In what positions?

What panic what did he or tr do

Maybe if you knew him extremely well.

What if the thing he planned to do for attention was show the picture?

Others have made that choice before, to make the same point that LF was making.

@Shedmistress what do you mean by panic in the room what did TR do ?

That’s a comfy little thought. Do Protestants kill gays and stone women too?

I do hear you. I work in a secondary PRU and we have potential Tommy Robinson’s coming through our doors daily. They’ve universally been failed by the education system and almost always come from families who do not value education and are often unemployed for generation. HOWEVER Tommy Robinson might have been one of these boys 30 years ago, I have no doubt that he was, but he isn’t a teenager anymore. He has made decisions over and over again to spread hate and bigotry far and wide. So I have sympathy for the boy he was, but not the man he now is.

Muslim beliefs against idolatry aren’t that different to what some Protestants believe

Because you’d think “it’s Laurence fox, a wet blanket piece of shit he’s obviously doing some cringe skit for attention”???

I was going to say this.

Sharia courts are just a form of civil arbitration. People can choose to have their contractual or simialar disputes settled by Sharia law, the Jewish equivalent (I forget the name) or any other set of rules they like if both parties agree.

Companies etc might go for arbitration totally outside of religious rules for expediency, because courts have such long waiting lists for example.

No one is even suggesting that there would be any kind of criminal court that was governed by Sharia law - it’s just a form of arbitration which works by consent. It would be impossible to have a criminal case decided this way.

I wouldn't say 'panic' but there were several interventions to try to get Lawrence Fox not to show the picture. Entirely rationally.

Showing the picture (his envelope was labelled C.H. which I guess might stand for Charlie Hebdo) has got many people killed.

Why would you not worry about that being shown in the chamber in a very high-profile and likely-to-be-widely-reported-on debate?

I have no idea what you are on about, I was talking to you about your views on Sharia law and you seem frightened not Lawrence Fox. I probably won't engage with you anymore.

You’ll have to ask them, do you have any Muslim friends?

And the women ,being taken to these courts understand that ? Esp if they are not English and can't speak English ? They understand their rights ?