Sharia doesn't affect common law rights - Public Domain

Mark Twain pointed out that it’s not what you don’t know that’s dangerous, it’s what you are certain is true but which ain’t that is. Which is something of a problem if those insisting upon knowing things which aren’t true are those who rule us.

Well, obviously, MPs are going to be know nothing careerists but we might hope for better from the House of Lords. Except, well:

Baroness Flather was the first Asian woman appointed to the House of Lords

Hmm, a career as a TEFL teacher and then local politician led to this elevation. An education in the law seems not to be among her accomplishments:

All British women have rights under common law, but when women enter into Sharia marriages those rights are sharply curtailed. Their husbands may feel emboldened to turn them and their children out of the home without reason or assistance. Some abusive men, when asked why they are no longer looking after their wives, say the government will take care of them. Men are able to exchange one wife for another and put the onus on the benefits system to care for their families.

Well, no. Entering into a voluntary contract is not a curtailment of rights, it’s an exercise of them. It’s a contract, you know?

But there’s something much more important behind this. All of what is described there is exactly the same as shacking up with someone. Whether you have a contract with the person you shack up with or not. Common law rights apply unless there is that – voluntary – contract. And common law rights in Britain concerning property and living together are pretty meagre. For we’ve a system designed to cover them, something called legal marriage.

Sharia marriage or not doesn’t change the necessity of, for example, child support. It also most certainly doesn’t change the ability to dispose of one mother of children for another. What’s being missed here, the thing being claimed which is not true, is that Sharia marriage law is any different from all other arrangements which are not that legal marriage.

Ignorance of the subject under discussion isn’t likely to be a good basis for law making, is it?

Subscribe to The CT Mailer!

33
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
14 Comment threads
19 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
17 Comment authors
NiVLjhnickSpikeChester Draws Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
decnine
Guest
decnine

A contract can award rights which are superior to those which arise from statute or common law. A contract term which purports to reduce statute or common law rights is void. In England, the Law of England is paramount.

Gamecock
Guest
Gamecock

Exactly. You cannot contract away your rights.

Steve
Member
Steve

I feel sure we were a happier nation when we’d never heard of Sharia.

nrob
Member
nrob

more specifically tony blair

Pat
Member
Pat

I suspect that the problem area is of women who are married under Sharia law but not registered as such under common law.
Such women will indeed have the same rights as women living with a man but with no contract, but no more.
The problem comes from entering a contract under Sharia and blythely assuming that that is the same as a contract before a registrar.

Spike
Member

Tim’s excerpt sounds as though Lady Flather was supporting the Muslim state of affairs, and it is clear from the intro that she is not: “Ministers announced plans…to force Muslim couples …to register their marriage in law. This must be applauded as a step towards safeguarding the rights of women and children.”

Tim’s point is valid that Muslim “marriage” is significantly less faithful to individual rights than is shacking up and relying on common law. The continuing pursuit of “diversity” is foolhardy, and any dream of assimilation is impossible.

Southerner
Member

Spike re assimilation. There are two fundamentally approaches to looking at the state’s rights over the individual. The first is collectivism, which says to hell with individual rights, we are going to tell you to do what we think best. The second is libertarianism, which says that the individual is paramount, and the state cannot force the individual to surrender rights for the common good or even for the individual’s own good. As soon as the state starts forcing people to do something, you know they’re up to no good. I would like to think that as a reasonable person… Read more »

So Much For Subtlety
Guest
So Much For Subtlety

Shaking up contains roughly no protections for women at all – beyond child support. Even Sharia offers more than that. Force Muslims to register their marriages? What are they going to do if they do not? Charge them with adultery? Seriously – have these half wits thought about the problem they are trying to create? The problem is that presence of Muslims in Britain. And the problem will not go away until all the migrants go away. All of them. In the meantime I think the Muslims are right. Christians should start to refuse to register their marriages with the… Read more »

Mr Ecks
Member
Mr Ecks

Sharia needs to be dealt with as part of a very large package of measure to restore this nation.

Gamecock
Guest
Gamecock

Exactly. Anyone who says ‘Sharia’ should get a year in prison.

NiV
Guest
NiV

Yeah! Jail or execute anyone who disagrees with us! That’ll teach them to respect our values of free speech and freedom of belief!

Spike
Member

To the point, NiV, interaction between Westerners and Muslims frequently becomes something more serious and deadly than a diversity of belief if vehicles and/or pressure cookers are handy. And Sharia and the Law of England do not mix – except by geographic partition and recognition of “no-go zones” in central cities.

NiV
Guest
NiV

“I don’t actually have very much truck with the “crime is caused by poverty” argument, because most poor people are law-abiding and some rich people are crims. But there is an association as a matter of fact.” I agree – the association of crime with the poor is like the association of terrorism with Muslims. There’s a connection, but the vast majority of the poor are not criminal, the vast majority of Muslims are not Jihadists, and it’s wrong to treat them *all* as if they were. I’ve no problem with dealing appropriately with the small subset who are. “Isn’t… Read more »

Spike
Member

Chester Draws: Apparently the Reply buttons go away if replies are sufficiently nested. In this case, please take care to specify whom you are calling a fuckwit. We are in near-universal agreement that correlation is not causation. And probably majority agreement that NiV is here to signal his virtue and not to argue coherently.

Chester Draws
Member
Chester Draws

Poverty is associated with crime, and if prosperous looking white folk play tourist in Harlem, they’re going to get mugged. There’s nothing ideological about that. Well that is not true. We know from people like Eldridge Cleaver that some people specifically like raping White women as a political act. You really don’t understand the meaning of the word “associated” or you’re being a f*ckwit for a better reason? People like doing all sorts of things for political reasons. The vast bulk of crime is not political like that, and we all know that. I don’t actually have very much truck… Read more »

So Much For Subtlety
Guest
So Much For Subtlety

Poverty is associated with crime, and if prosperous looking white folk play tourist in Harlem, they’re going to get mugged. There’s nothing ideological about that. Well that is not true. We know from people like Eldridge Cleaver that some people specifically like raping White women as a political act. We can look at the figures and see that while Blacks like to murder other Blacks for other crimes they appear to seek out Whites or at least non-Blacks. So there is a clear political agenda. The only way to beat them is to convert them, and we can only do… Read more »

NiV
Guest
NiV

Yep. We in Britain have about 2.7 million Muslims living in our country, and over the past 16 years they have managed to kill a little under 100 people in terrorist incidents. That’s an average of about 6 murders per year. About two victims per million Muslims. As elite Jihadist warriors individually devoted to wholesale slaughter of the infidels, so that the rivers run with blood, they’re not exactly in the Mons/Ypres league of effectiveness, are they? We have, and have always had “no-go” areas in all our cities, and not just because of the Muslims. Poverty is associated with… Read more »

Mr Ecks
Member
Mr Ecks

Even in short compass NiV you demonstrate a level of fuckwitery so profound that there must be a place waiting for you in Agent COB’s Cabinet of Curiousities.

Minister of Scientistico Bullshit perhaps with special responsibility for the timely delivery of Nuclear Fusion by 2255. Which is very nearly 11 o’clock.

Fred Z
Member
Fred Z

Judges have already eroded the common and statutory law by granting marital-like rights to women simply shacking up with a man, as you point out

The question is, will the Judges do the same, or enforce a sharia contract as a simple contract, when the Muslim man, or his coreligionists, may shoot, knife or bomb the judge or his or her family. Unhappily, the question pretty much answers itself.

bloke in spain
Member
bloke in spain

“Ignorance of the subject under discussion isn’t likely to be a good basis for law making, is it?”
It is if you’re aim is to have sharia marriage provide equal benefits under the law. Because you can guarantee they’ll want all the rights they want under English law. Whilst keeping all the rights they want under sharia law. Cake & eat it.

NiV
Guest
NiV

If you choose to engage in a Sharia marriage, then you get the rights granted by Sharia law. It’s a contract, and verbal contracts are binding, irrespective of whether a registrar is present. If you don’t like Sharia, don’t be a Muslim.

The problem here, I think, is not so much ignorance of British law, but of Sharia law. Because Sharia does indeed include an obligation to pay child support. See al Misri’s Umdat as Salik, sections m11.10-12 and m12.1-4.

Ljh
Guest
Ljh

“If you don’t like Shariah don’t be a Muslim”!!!! NiV: there is nothing optional about being a Muslim on pain of ostracism, persecution and death which also applies to any children born of a relationship with a RoPer irrespective of shariah sanction or not and irrespective of whether said RoPer is devout or nominal. Shariah also confers rights of custody to the father of all sons once they are two years old and daughters from seven. I am closely acquainted with the mother of two daughters from a relationship with a human rights lawyer of Muslim background but with no… Read more »

NiV
Guest
NiV

“NiV: there is nothing optional about being a Muslim on pain of ostracism, persecution and death which also applies to any children born of a relationship with a RoPer irrespective of shariah sanction or not and irrespective of whether said RoPer is devout or nominal.” Agreed. Which is why I’d prefer not to tar them all with the same brush. Most Western Muslims are not Muslims. “Shariah also confers rights of custody to the father of all sons once they are two years old and daughters from seven.” No it doesn’t. Although it wouldn’t surprise me if the father had… Read more »

Ljh
Guest
Ljh

Suggestion: go and live in an actual Muslim society or ghetto and see how they do things. Examine “integrated” cultural Muslims and see what assumptions and values have travelled with them. You have diddly squat real experience and just quote things you’ve read.

NiV
Guest
NiV

The only *actual* Muslim societies nowadays are ones like ISIS and Boko Haram. And everyone knows what they’re like.

So Much For Subtlety
Guest
So Much For Subtlety

I bet Sharia does not include an obligation to pay child support. Because when a child reaches a certain age they go to the father.

However Islam does have some property associated with marriage. But calling that child support is to misuse the term and can only be done if someone’s intent is to deceive.

Mr Ecks
Member
Mr Ecks

Tim W–How is it on Contins here that NiV can peddle his crap and have the thread end with no further chance to reply to his garbage directly underneath. The above at 12.34 is the second time he has done so. The old blog–in strict chrono order– was far better. NiV: Since I’m here Oh great Jihadi squelcher and Master of Friendly Persuasion, the fact that suicide-kills are not that popular even with nutters is hardly another of your peer-reviewed miracles. Rape, abuse and sodomising little boys at swimming pools etc are vastly more popular however. And far from being… Read more »

moqifen
Member
moqifen

Niv looks at 1400 years of the history of islam and the estimated 500 million deaths caused by the same ( 200 million in india alone) and daily stories of rape gangs , genital mutilation etc and comes to the conclusion we have nothing to worry about. the fact is the hundred deaths Niv so blithely dismisses as being unimportant would not have occurred if we hadn’t imported these pieces of shit. . Each of these lives lost was important to that person and their friends and family. the only consolation is that when the goatfuckers outbreed us into a… Read more »

Tim Newman
Member

Poverty is associated with crime, and if prosperous looking white folk play tourist in Harlem, they’re going to get mugged.

Not these days: Harlem has organic supermarkets on the street corners these days. When I was there 18 months ago, I stayed in a $2m house.

Gamecock
Guest
Gamecock

The irony being that NiV will be the first to go when the Muslims get control.

I hope you can fly.

Shibusa
Member
Shibusa

2.7m Muslims? Back in 2001 maybe.
The 2011 census reveals 4.4m UK muslims (70% increase since 2001) and an estimate of 7.8m for 2018.

Do you see the pattern here? Simple mathematics states that this country will be Islamic before the century is out.

This has a name: conquest.

NiV
Guest
NiV

The 2011 census reported 2.8m, if you add on the 76k in Scotland.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/articles/religioninenglandandwales2011/2012-12-11

More recent estimates are guesswork, although I’ve seen one plausible survey estimate of 3.1m for 2015. Given that the bigger the number, the stronger the argument I was making would be, I opted to be conservative.

An no doubt the same simple mathematics predicts that the country will be 200% Muslim by the century after…

Ljh
Guest
Ljh

@gamecock: what makes you think NiV would want to pretend to be a woman under shariah when all the incentives are to be male. The current panto of tranniedom is driven by identity politics, giving him a leg up in the victim stakes, peculiar only to the tailend of a once great culture.