It exists every time two Muslims decide that they will use it as ‘the rules’ to govern a business or personal arangement, and in particular the rules under which disputes will be setteled. The principle here is that anyone can agree the rules under which they will settle civil disputes, and as long as they manage to continue to agree those rules then while having the dispute it is those rules that will apply.

What the judge is saying will have the effect of bringing the Sharia courts, that already exist under these private arangements, under some form of UK legal influence. To date they can act in any way they want.

It is putting UK values into Sharia law, not putting Sharia into UK law.

You might prefer banning Sharia courts, but good luck finding a way to do that that is remotely Constitutional.

Save the planet? Trust me, it’s gonna make it.

Save the Rule of Law. It’s far more integral to your continued existence than how many squares of toilet paper you use, or any supine, multicultural pandering that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Save yourselves, or it really will be “America Alone.”

As for that stupid judge, he proves the old story about how to boil a frog. Too bad he’s cooking a lot more than his own foolish hide.

Where’s England’s new Churchill? “But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age…”

God, they fought the Nazis just so they could cower before a different set of bloodthirsty barbarians 60 years later?

Scott

What makes you think the Supremes didn’t based Boumediene on Sharia Law?

It sure wasn’t based on any of ours.