Genital Mutilation Ban Ruled Unconstitutional; Judge Drops Charges- Agree?

[eohrnberger]

It's not one law, but dozens as well as the constitution itself which guarantees separation of church and state. Now some divorce courts might be able to make allowances for cultural practices over who gets what, and some banks may allow Muslim customers to call a loan by another name, but I'm talking about 'real' Shariah Law - the so-called nasty stuff in the extreme versions that gets everyone scared. We can't stone someone to death for adultery, force a child to marry anyone (much less her rapist), execute homosexuals (sorry Mr Pence), tax Jews differently, have four wives (sorry Mr Trump) or be thrown in jail for blasphemy as it is. So the idea that Shariah can be implemented by stealth is preposterous when so much of what it prescribes in its most medieval interpretations is already illegal.

If there are Muslim enclaves, such as there are around the Western world - not, they are not assimilating to local culture and local law,
and they set up a Sharia court for themselves,
and they all live by whatever ruling that court makes,

what are the chances that it would become common public knowledge?
Especially when official inquiries are made, and everyone who is asked about it denies it even exists?

So I'm thinking your dismissal of even the possibility might be rather hasty. It very well could happen, and it isn't out of the realm of possibility.

Is it possible that Sharia law at some time be mandated by popular vote? On this point, I would agree, it's rather doubtful. But that said, there is already a movement that wishes to erase national borders, so who's to know what the future holds?

 

[uptower]

If there are Muslim enclaves, such as there are around the Western world - not, they are not assimilating to local culture and local law,
and they set up a Sharia court for themselves,
and they all live by whatever ruling that court makes,

what are the chances that it would become common public knowledge?
Especially when official inquiries are made, and everyone who is asked about it denies it even exists?

So I'm thinking your dismissal of even the possibility might be rather hasty. It very well could happen, and it isn't out of the realm of possibility.

Well they might try and likely have before. But when people find out about it and they run afoul of local laws then they get dealt with.

By the way this even happens in Muslim countries. Even Pakistan , hardly a bastion of freedom, has prosecuted 'village councils' for implementing their own strict versions of Shariah.

As for the (as you said, remote) possibility of a popular vote somehow mandating Shariah law I think that's extremely unlikely. Who would vote for it except small, unassimilated, strict Muslim sects? Even many Muslims that migrate to the west have done so to escape the comparative strictness.

Likewise the popular perception that "The Liberals TM" are up for anything and will vote to support Shariah, out of respect for Islam is a foolish train of thought. Liberals and progressives instinctively go for more freedom, not less. So much of Shariah disallows those freedoms (women's rights, capital punishment, forced marriages) that they're not going to vote to take women's freedom away.

 

[American]

Dr Josef Mengele would be proud of this judge.

 

[Waddy]

I could care less what other parents from other cultures teach and have their kids do, as long as there is not permanent harm. So back to the example that you continually dodge. And this is an example to determine principle, not necessarily based on an actual culture. Because after all the principle should be consistent. If it is part of the culture that three fingers are cut off, should a parent be allowed to cut off the fingers of the child before they are an adult to choose to be part of that culture?

If cutting off fingers is part of their culture then it isn't up to us to judge. In some countries stoning to death is still the law. In some countries using drugs can get you 25 years or worse. In some countries aborting the unborn is the norm. Some countries still have the death penalty, often by injecting chemicals. Different cultures, different atrocities. You OK with them telling us what's lawful?

 

[eohrnberger]

Well they might try and likely have before. But when people find out about it and they run afoul of local laws then they get dealt with.

The assumption is that 'people find out'. My position on that point is that people may, or may not, find out.
How many people have imprisoned others for years, decades, and no one ever found out?

Man at filthy New Mexico compound was training kids to commit school shootings, prosecutors say
Kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard

There are many things that people can do out of sight that the rest of the local community will never know of. The local Sharia law courts could very well be among them. If there is are no registered students, no census, no calling of local authorities, no connection with the local community, such as we've seen in say France, who'd know?

By the way this even happens in Muslim countries. Even Pakistan , hardly a bastion of freedom, has prosecuted 'village councils' for implementing their own strict versions of Shariah.

Again, assumes knowledge of their existence by the authorities. How long were the local 'village councils' in operation before being shutdown?

As for the (as you said, remote) possibility of a popular vote somehow mandating Shariah law I think that's extremely unlikely. Who would vote for it except small, unassimilated, strict Muslim sects? Even many Muslims that migrate to the west have done so to escape the comparative strictness.

I'm not about to guess as to why so many Muslims migrate to the West. I suspect that there are as many reasons as there are people who migrate.

Likewise the popular perception that "The Liberals TM" are up for anything and will vote to support Shariah, out of respect for Islam is a foolish train of thought. Liberals and progressives instinctively go for more freedom, not less. So much of Shariah disallows those freedoms (women's rights, capital punishment, forced marriages) that they're not going to vote to take women's freedom away.

"Liberals and progressives instinctively go for more freedom, not less"

Well, let's just say that opinions differ on that one.
Liberal Fascism

Seemingly more freedom for all those that toe their political lines, support their political and social agendas, other than that, meh :shrug: not so much, it appears.

Seems in its transition from classic liberalism, circa 60's, to modern liberalism, circa 2000's, something rather significant was lost.

Anyway, who's supporting the judge's decision in the FGM case?

 

[maquiscat]

If cutting off fingers is part of their culture then it isn't up to us to judge. In some countries stoning to death is still the law. In some countries using drugs can get you 25 years or worse. In some countries aborting the unborn is the norm. Some countries still have the death penalty, often by injecting chemicals. Different cultures, different atrocities. You OK with them telling us what's lawful?

If I was to go there, yes, which is the point. If I go there and use drugs, I should be subject to that country's laws and culture. But the whole conversation is about their culture coming here and more specifically being applied to children prior to the child being old enough to decide to be part of that culture.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[uptower]

Anyway, who's supporting the judge's decision in the FGM case?

Not me. It seems that there was some procedural issue the judge had with the ban (not the spirit of it) and in any case the FGM case is covered by a raft of other laws that will be prosecuted. The case was not tossed, the suspects are still in going to trial. Which is why I wonder why laws that 'ban' this or 'ban' that are proposed when 'this and that' are already illegal.

Is it possible the law was added to some other bill as a rider to stop the opposition voting against it? That often happens.

 

[Waddy]

If I was to go there, yes, which is the point. If I go there and use drugs, I should be subject to that country's laws and culture. But the whole conversation is about their culture coming here and more specifically being applied to children prior to the child being old enough to decide to be part of that culture.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

And my point is that when people immigrate here they bring ALL their culture with them, and intend to continue practicing that culture. And that culture includes their children. It is a slippery slope when we assert power over the children of other cultures. It is often seen as racist and oppressive. Ever heard of the Carlisle Indian School?

Let me ask you a question; would you be OK with Sharia law here if an immigrant group grew large and politically powerful enough to enact it by lawful democratic means? Meaning, of course, that they had the votes to get it done.

 

[eohrnberger]

Not me. It seems that there was some procedural issue the judge had with the ban (not the spirit of it) and in any case the FGM case is covered by a raft of other laws that will be prosecuted. The case was not tossed, the suspects are still in going to trial. Which is why I wonder why laws that 'ban' this or 'ban' that are proposed when 'this and that' are already illegal.

Some sort of technical issue with the content of the law, the way it was written seems most likely. Why is it that our legislature can't manage to write laws without issues? Being mostly lawyers, you'd think they'd' know how, and is not, wouldn't they have had lawyers review the actual text of the law? Come on already! Get it right!

Is it possible the law was added to some other bill as a rider to stop the opposition voting against it? That often happens.

I guess so, but isn't this how we've ended up with so much 'bad' law on the books?

 

[Excon]

Dr Josef Mengele would be proud of this judge.

Nonsensical hyperbole.

 

[American]

Nonsensical hyperbole.

Oh, appears the judge doesn't want to stop this horror.

 

[Excon]

Oh, appears the judge doesn't want to stop this horror.

Really? How so? Did you actually read what he said?
Or are you just making things up off the cuff?