Chomper Higgot

That would be Italy and is almost certainly a misrepresentation of reality.

Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights, to which the UK is a signatory, protects the adherence of all people within the UK to the religion and their religious practices of their choice, just as it protects all people in the UK to leave or not follow any religion or religious practice. The permitting of all ‘religious courts’ while denying them all legal authority is entirely consistent with Article 9. Sensible, equitable and pragmatic.

Either allow all ‘religious courts’ or none at all. The policy of allowing all, while denying all any legal authority is both sensible and equitable. And it’s definitely not confusing.

Non of the various ‘religious courts’ hold any legal authority. There is only one law, the law of the land.

There is no death penalty for adulatory in British law, regardless of the gender of the adulterer. If there ever was then that law has been changed.

Where is the clause in British law that states anything in any religious ruling supersedes British law?

When did any of that happen in the UK?

This isn’t the Dear Deardre page, but thank you for sharing.

I’m not sure when the last time a woman was stoned to death I the UK but I’m quite certain that if ever happened it wasn’t Muslims doing the stoning.

Who said that’s what I was referring to?

Not being content with his support of despots and tyrants, Trump aligns himself as friend of disease and ill health.

In a thread dripping Islamophobia an antisemite shows up.

Either allow all of these or none of these. Allowing all while denying all any supremacy over UK law is a sensible solution, balancing the rights and liberties of each of these religious groups while upholding the supremacy of British law.

I don’t suppose Shapiro asked Waltz about the consequences of cutting up U.S. citizens with a bone saw? Or would that have got I the way of this deal he has in mind for Saudi Arabia?!

You need to draw a distinction between tween supporting anything and singling out one particular faith to deny it’s adherents to follow their faith. Either allow all faiths or none, all ‘religious courts’ or none. Given that all ‘religious courts’ and any other form of independent arbitration in the UK subservient to British law and the ECHR where is the problem. Non of the ‘religious courts’ in the UK have any authority above the law of the land.

There are members of this board who argue against British law and getting rid of many of the protections it offers individuals. These opinions are mute, British law is not being overthrown, negated or abolished.

Oh

If they have been keeping those bottles standing up all these years the contents are almost certainly Corked.

Any ruling by any ‘Sharia Court’ in the UK, just like any ruling by any other ‘Religious Court’ is subject to and may not infringe UK law OR just as importantly the European Convention on Human Rights. Which raises an interesting question. Why is it that those who are convinced that Sharia law is coming to get them and their rights are the same people, and newspapers, who vehemently oppose human rights laws and the ECHR, both of watch are a protection against tyrannical governments and abusive laws, regardless of those being religious or secular?

The anti Trump rhetoric is coming from Trump himself.

Says the guy who obviously has absolutely no idea what thread he’s posting in.

Superiors?

So off topic by seven decades,

Work place rule #1. Don’t dip your bread in your gravy.

In fairness (let me be polite), you are talking utter nonsense: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/