Islamic law officially adopted by Britain

The British Labour Party and its supporters will never be forgiven for these crimes against our liberties (all hard-won over centuries). What is happening is this: the UK is being re-made in an apartheid-like strucuture, where races and ethnicities ae being separated, with their own schools and other services. And now their own laws. This is a step backwards.

Australia has been looking at recognizing Aboriginal customary law. I remember hearing about some cases that that were dealt with under Aboriginal customary law.

Personally, as long as extensive inquires  are conducted into the pros and cons and strict regulation is enforced, I believe it is possible to create legal processes that can include "other" laws/systems of justice. 

There is a big difference between Australian aboriginals, and Britain's muslims. The Australian aboriginals are the first people of Australia, and deserving of respect and accomodation. Muslims in Britain, on the other hand, are recent arrivals in the country. 

Muslim law for muslims thats OK as long as they obey UK laws in the way they reach their decissions. I think France is correct UK law needs to be harder.

The main cases will be civil and as the civil in the UK needs to be overhauled to make it more efficent  is there any wonder some want to go by other means. 

J.G. Ballard wrote a book called 1985, where he mapped out how militant Islam would eventually take over the UK. He could see it then: the country long ago handed over its economy to the middle east. Many of the current public battles have this as their underlying cause. For example, the battle over who will control London's police.

This is so messed up. What if one person is Muslim and the other person isn't? From my understanding of Sharia law, which isn't even the same from one area to another and has a number of areas that can be interpreted in various ways, this seems a slippery slope.

If people can use old Sharia laws, why not ancient christian or jewish laws?

'And justice for all' indeed.

This is just another example of the West's confused current culture as Islam's strident intolerance marches forward. 

The surrender comes from phoney 'white guilt' that at the same time tries to create moral equivalence among different cultures, with confusion being the only winner. 

No longer a Christian culture, the UK has resorted to the multi-cultural Barney The Dinosaur 'the more we get together the happier we'll be' ethos--at its peril.

Bottom line: No common culture. No common protection under the law. No common sense. 

The Christian Bible says in the last days, 'nations will be a mixture of people's who will not hold together.'

Ya got that right. 

This article is mostly rubbish.  First of all there is no such thing as "BRITISH" law since Scotland has it own set of laws.  So in order for such an "ACT", as the article put it, to pass, it would have to pass TWO houses of parliament, Scottish and English/Welsh, the UK has not, as this article suggests, passed any new set of laws allowing Sharia to take precedence in any circumstance.  If you look at the comments made by Lord Phillips the Lord Chief Justice around the beginning of July (and they're pretty easy to find, if any modicum of fact checking was done by the journalist involved here), he says that mediation (and that's what we're talking about here, mediation and only mediation) is already allowed to take place using a third party as the mediator, but the decision still has to be within the bounds of ENGLISH and WELSH law (again his comments make no mention of the UK), so there is no change to be made here, the law allowing this type of third party mediation already exists and I think you will find, it already exists in the USA too.  The important part that is missing from the article is that the findings must not break the law of the land, which in this case is ENGLAND and WALES.

This is pure scaremongering, and what's worse its being perpetuated by a publication (the TIMES of LONDON) which is owned by Mr Ruport Murdoch the owner of the FOX News Network, need I say more.

In addition, for those of you experts debating the strength of the UNITED KINGDOM'S parliamentary system and the separation of Church and State, the UK is a secular "CONSTITUTIONAL" Monarchy which means that the people have the power, the monarch is titular only and has ABSOLUTELY NO POWER and nor does any church or religious organization.  It is also NOT, I repeat NOT, true that religious education is mandatory in the normal comprehensive school systems in any of England, Wales or Scotland's non-denominational schools.  If you go to a private (i.e. fee paying) school of a particular religious leaning, then religious studies may indeed be mandatory.  Finally, on the subject of Britain and a constitution, anyone who would like to study the "Magna Carta", which is pretty much recognized as one of the oldest "CONSITUTIONAL" documents in existence can easily do so by just doing a rudimentary search of the internet.