To ask if it's a good thing that London has a Muslim mayor

[DoesFlossfloss]

Because my London based in-laws are not happy and I've not been following the campaign as I'm not in London so don't really care. However, we're seeing PILs this weekend and it will be up for discussion.

You keep asking what do we fear from S Khan Bert. My answer is: hopefully nothing, but I can't see into the future and anyway that doesn't de legitimise anyone who might want to cast doubt on his judgement.

I am concerned that a man who got the ban on the Islamo-fascist bastard Louis Farrakand lifted. Visited Babar Ahmad in Woodhill Prison. (Google him up, a delightful chap who admitted providing material support to the Taliban) is now going to wield a lot of power, money and influence.

Khan has been linked to CAGE, which describe Islamic State executioner Mohammed Emwazi as a “beautiful young man”. He also shared a stage with five Islamic extremists, including at sex-segregated events.
There are plenty more accusations but as they come from Tory HQ they'll probably just get waved away as racist. Khan's main supporter is that Nazi obsessed, tit -head Ken Livingstone. So I reserve the right to be critical of Khan, despite having voted for him.

Yes, you are unreasonable.

So if the last Tory mayor was found "personally guilty" of "corrupt or illegal ractices, including giving tax payers money to his favourite far right groups & electoral fraud. You wouldn't mention that to attack the next Tory candidate RedToothBrush?

Well I think we've established that Game of Thrones was right and MrSnow does indeed know nothing...

The fact he shared a stage is not necessarily an issue for me. Nor the fact it was single sex.

What matters is WHAT he said.

If he can get into events like that, and to a key target audience to deliver an alternative message despite the fact it could be held against him, I would think it an enormous strength, and a sign that maybe he can deliver on promises to tackle extremism better than any other elected official.

If he is able to engage where others have failed then surely that's a good thing?

Why do we automatically assume he is one of them, rather than one of us?

Exactly, Red.

He seems an educated guy with some promising ideas for the capital. I don't see why his wacko religion should affect his ability to perform as mayor.

Just catching up with this thread its been really informative all round thus far.

Since several PPs have mentioned Sharia law, I wonder if Sadiq Khan will do anything towards closing down Sharia courts in London?

there are sharia courts in London> this surprises me, I would have thought illegal no?

Plus, London is the home of the liberal left elite who see islam as their saviour against Capitalism so it's no surprise that Mr Khan was voted in

Islam the what most lefty liberal elite I know have done very well off the back of capitalism!

Racism might not have been to technically accurate term (prejudice/ ignorant/ judgmental might've been better but I'm having a long day at work and bloody distracted by this thread). My point was (and still is) that some of the comments about SK based largely solely on his religion are grossly unfair, as are the 'Muslim' stereotypes

Just interested how you feel about the film spot light - highlighting horrific abuse by priests in the catholic church. Or the criticism of the rich pope, all the jokes about Catholics, the films/stories - the Magdalen sister etc.

Is that racist too? Were the Journos who went after that story racist?

It seems to me they wanted to un cover corruption in the church. There is corruption in Islam and we need to talk about it. Whether SK is part of this or not, is by the by but its right to talk about these things. If only to allay some - peoples fears.

If the new London mayor had been a catholic would he have been held to account for abuse by catholic priests? Was Boris questioned about abuse among Anglican clergymen?

Mint, you might find this informative:
fullfact.org/law/uks-sharia-courts/

Your post about church corruption supports what other people have been saying - the existence of nasty bastards in a faith-based system doesn't mean every member of that system is a bastard. Neither does it make every member accountable for the actions of the nasty bastards.

Take that a step further - the vast majority of murders, robberies, sex-related crimes and torture in the UK is perpetrated by secular, white men. What does this imply about the non-religious white men we're forced to deal with daily?? [fake shock]

If the new London mayor had been a catholic would he have been held to account for abuse by catholic priests? Was Boris questioned about abuse among Anglican clergymen?

YY

There is a disproportionate amount of attention attached to his religion for what appears to be very little reason.

there are sharia courts in London> this surprises me, I would have thought illegal no?

I'm not a flag waver for sharia - I don't know enough about it - but why should any private arrangement between consenting adults be illegal?

Why should Sadiq Khan or anyone else get involved?

Well, some private arrangements between consenting adults are very illegal!

I get your meaning, though, which is why I posted the link for MintJulip.

There are sharia "courts" in this country which people can choose to use for civil matters. They could do with looking into, frankly, when it comes to divorce.

Bert - "In 2013, the High Court was asked by an Orthodox Jewish couple to accept the ruling of a Jewish religious court on post-divorce family arrangements. The judge said that while the agreement would carry weight, it would be non-binding—neither party could get around English law by agreeing to abide by the decision of another tribunal.

"Rather than open the door to "Sharia divorces", as some newspapers reported, the judgment confirmed that agreements made in a religious form are ultimately subject to English law."

Not sure what his religion, and I say it again, Islam is NOT race, has to do with it?! What religion was Boris? Did it matter?!

Good to hear, Garlic, although both sharia and rabbinical courts can put women in a very difficult position.

What religion was Boris?

A shagafarian by all accounts

Rather than open the door to "Sharia divorces", as some newspapers reported, the judgment confirmed that agreements made in a religious form are ultimately subject to English law."

That's what I always thought GarlicShake. I first heard about this in 1987 when my friend went through a rabbinical court to obtain what a Christian person would say was an annulment in order for her to marry again in a religious ceremony.

It had no bearing on her civil divorce. She fancied the idea of another fancy wedding in a synagogue.

I realise that there is the danger of people being hoodwinked out of their rights under English and Welsh law, but those laws are there and take supremacy.

I don'y think there's a danger that Sadiq Khan will drag us back to the Dark Age, but know doubt people will be watching him.

my friend went through a rabbinical court to obtain what a Christian person would say was an annulment

Hah, good point, limited! So much angsting about sharia courts in the UK, when the very same things exist in the Catholic, Anglican and Jewish faiths. And probably the rest; I know very little about religious laws.

I am no way in favour of the full-on medieval version of sharia, as practised in some other places. But those are places where the religion dictates the law. No religion dictates our legal system - except in Ireland. I'm not in favour of that, either.

But if people want to square their actions with their faith, and it doesn't involve breaking the actual legal law - good luck to them.

There is a sensible conversation to be had about Sharia courts and other types of mediation services (both religious and secular) in terms of how they are regulated, what qualifications those providing advice have and so on, with a move to provide very strict guidelines covering their operation.

I think that conversation could be a very popular one, but it isn't allowed to happen because people start squawking about Saudi Arabia.

A basic principle of Sharia is that it cannot overrule the laws of the land, so as pointed out upthread, there is no conflict between the two.

There is no conversation to be had at all because as soon as anyone mentions sharia they are called Racist' biggots.

Capricorn76
My fear now is that he'll be forced to go overboard trying to prove he's pro-Jewish

And what exactly does going overboard trying to prove you're pro-Jewish look like exactly?

Poor guy is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Now people are worried he'll be too nice to the Jews!