Broadcasting spots

Laura

A cool-headed and forensic dissection of the issues on Question TIme - as ever.

Dr. Irene Lancaster

You were excellent on Question Time and it was gratifying to experience the audience being on your side. The Bishop of Hulme was as awkward and out of depth, just as he was when attacking the Chief Rabbi for expressing concerns over divestment from Israel. It was also very good that you were asked to describe the role of the Bet Din, because most voices on the subject to date have not been Jewish voices. My own view is that the status of the Bet Din might now be undermined as a result of the Archbishop's sharia speech and the furore it has provoked. Pity you weren't on this week's Question Times, where the subject of the Bet Din came up as well.

phil

As always saying it as it is

Eva Kalina

Melanie, I wish you could have heard all the people applauding you in their homes last night. You were great and spoke sense, such a contrast with the Baroness and the Minister. Thank you very, very much.

MartinW

Yes, a very unusual 'Question Time' in the relative lack of harassment of the speakers by the chairman, and the fair-minded audience. As ever, MP spoke good sense, and in clear language. What a contrast to the bishop, whose main concern was to protect his boss. Under some pressure, Bishop Hulme did seem to concede that there should be one law for all. However, I was disappointed that no-one on the panel (or indeed the chairman) asked him whether, in that case, he opposed the new acceptance of polygamy for some muslims, to whom the UK law on bigamy now no longer applies.

Chingford Man

I also thought the Bishop of Hulme was far out of his depth. He didn't seem to have a clue about (a) what his boss actually said and (b)the wider Islamist challenge. As for his dopey assertion that the furore was all the work of the Murdoch press, the comment pages on media websites were deluged with reaction on the Thursday evening. As for the other panellists, Clive James was elegant and erudite in his smart alec way, whilst Sayeeda Warsi and Caroline Flint demonstrated elegantly the low calibre of people who now seem to get on in politics. I remember QT as a boy with people like Enoch Powell, Roy Jenkins and Baroness Seear, and I'm sure there were more substantial figures in the Robin Day years.

Austin Barry

Good Question Time. In addition to Melanie's excellent contribution, I thought our Aussie chum Clive James made some telling points. His comment about "a ticking bomb" in our midst cut through the complacent rhetoric like a raw and bloody knife - cue rapid blinking and head-shaking from the Bishop and more prattle about community cohesion from the Shadow Minister for, er, Community Cohesion.

field

We were obviously watching different programmes. Fan though I am of Melanie it seemed to me she was more than a little discomfited by the discussion and that it was Clive James who had the clear and consistent position. Dimbleby really got to the point on Question Time tonight when he quoted the 2002 Act (wonder if his researchers have been on this blog - wouldn't be surprised, since it's the first mention I've seen of it) and actually quoted the phrase about Jewish usages and so on. Now, Melanie's response as far as I could make out was: (a) That the law only operates "informally" (her exact expression) with respect to Jews. (b) That the act also applies to Muslim law and Sharia courts (which is true - along with other religions) and therefore there was nothing wrong with it. Now with regard to (a) I don't see how anyone can maintain this is informal when the parties to a Jewish marriage can both be required by statute, whether they like it or not, to go through the Beth Din courts. Nothing could be more formal - a UK statute giving official recognition to the religious courts and "usages" of a religion and requiring people to act in a certain way. As for (b) - well this is a stunning concession. It underlines what I have said all along that there is a direct connection between the Beth Din courts "franchise" and the advance of Shariah. What Melanie didn't say on the programme was that the UK courts appear not to have activated this legal provision yet. But the Jewish template is there and I think teh Archbishop giving a speech before the Lord Chief Justice was part of a softening up process meant to bring in this first stage Shariah. Clive James was brilliant, arguing rightly that the real issue here was not the substance of what the Archbishop was saying (as Melanie was arguing - ineffectively) but the "thin end of the wedge" issue. Whilst people would present the use of Shariah courts as being on the model of the Jewish courts, we know that the Shariah gang will not stop there. They will want more concessions. It might be formal recognition of polygamy or some such, but there will definitely be pressure for further advance until they can maybe get whole localities subject to real Shariah. The Bishop was a good spokesperson for his superior - and did far better than Rowan ever could have. However he too failed to address the thin end of the wedge argument which is what the mass of people in this country, quite sensibly, are concerned about.

Hereford

One thing that irritated me about last night's programme is the use of the word Communities, plural. I know it is non-PC to actually name the beast you are dealing with, but, as far as I am aware there is only one community which is causing us a problem.

Mark

The Bishop of Hulme is the same guy who wants to ban (another banner) the Hymn 'I Vow to Thee, My Country'. Labelling its popularity as a symptom of a "dangerous" increase in English nationalism. We should be so lucky. This weak, misguided useful fool is leading his flock astray and in that guise is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He typifies the multi-faith, multi-cultural attitudes that are so virulent in the CofE hierarchy, I blanch to use the word episcopate, that has brought the Church to its knees. He sees good in everyone else's country but his own (Sans USA), he sees value in every other culture but his own, a prime candidate for the next AB of C.

David Gray

I dont watch Question Time anymore unless I know who's on it and then at least know someone will be telling the truth...like our Melanie.Did anyone else notice that the BBC edited out one of Clive James comments.He was speaking and then it was edited and all you can hear is applause dying away and then he ends his comment.He probably upset the poor poor BBC....too much truth gives them a headache that lasts for weeks.

Frank Pulley

field: Christ! Another prolix and ant-semitic rant, confused, rambling and illogocal. I agree that Clive James was concise in the point he added to Melanie's analysis. Easy, when someone had just done all the hard work. Pity you don't use him as an example, rather than Archie and his front men that you seem to admire so much. You are now turning into a predictible troll ... but there is, of course, always the scroll key, which I must remember to use in future.

Ravi

Well done Melanie. Maybe because I personally distilled the essence of the ABC saying that Muslim's had a loyalty conflict that I welcomed you stating that. I notice that everyone seemed to run away from that point. I was also stunned at how well Baroness Warsi is. She must have had suregery to have removed the word "Muslim" from every utterance of the word "community". I also resent how people have spun Sharia Courts on the back of the Beth Din while completely representing what the Beth Din is and that it has no parallel aspect or any legal authority.

phil

Having posted this in the *muliculural creeps*section it seems necessary to put it here also as the scarlet pimpernel AKA field posts his nonsence everywhere . FIELD this is just for you -please let me know which is your book on logic and I will get it, meanwhile let me assure you I had an excellent education ,was I believe a highly regarded person in my profession ,share my time with Christians Jews and Muslims and looked after people from all those religions ,and debated our problems without rancour ,so please no lessons from you - You continue to ignore countless explanations of the role of the Beth Din and what you refer to as the Jewish courts ,you refuse to accept or cannot understand that they have no jurisdiction in UK law -it seems that you are determined to cause problems where none should exist with your foolish comments -I am sure I am not alone in being utterly fed up with your stubborn refusal to desist. So I ask you as politely as possible stop making your comments on this subject until you have educated yourself on it -All you achieve is confusing others whose knowledge on this subject is necessarily limited,which may well cause rifts between peoples who otherwise would get on together -That surely cannot be your purpose.

Ravi

field your mis-representation of what the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002 says clearly comes from an Antisemitic agenda (selective attacks on Jews or their faith or mis-representing in order to disparage). The act clearly says that any reference to the granting of a Jewish Divorce by the Beth Din is entirely voluntary by either party requesting that the process of a Jewish divorce has been instigated (or will be instigated). ONLY if one the parties raises it and the act say it "MAY require it". This is hardly mandatory or acknowledging of a Jewish Divorce under the British Legal system when it requires either party to raise it as an issue (ie it isn't made mandatory by the Act). Now, please continue in this vein because people who fight Antisemitism like as many examples as possible

phil

well said Ravi -the scarlet pimpernel AKA field will probably migrate to another page now to continue with his nonsense Its almost getting to be fun following him around!!

YA

field - Beth Din and Sharia Court are both courts. Mouse and elephant are both mammals.

Mark

I saw you on Question Time last night and you did not look like your picture. Are you dying your hair?

Mike Homfray

As ever, I disagreed with most of what you said. Not that I agreed with the ABC, but in reality, you support his wish to see religionist sensibilities respected - its just you think they should be imposed on the rest of us who don;t follow those religions ie the vast majority of effectively secular Britain. After all, I can't see you agreeing to go along with the one law we have now, so much of which you loathe. That is the logical position to take if you oppose the ABC's position. But you wish to portray your conservative religionisn as 'right' and 'Western' and Islam as the opposite - whereas in fact, both are in opposition to secular liberalism which is what should hold sway in a liberal democratic society, with your religionism allowed in the private sphere.

phil

Mark honestly!!! you cant be too good with the ladies -I thought she looked magnificent-for goodness sake dont say things like that to your girlfriend,you could be cooking your own breakfast or even having it with field -well maybe thats too much punishment

phil

YA maybe you could tell field the joke about the elephant, his friend, asking the mouse why he was so small -the mouse replied well i have not been very well-I THINK HE WOULD DO WELL TO HEAR SOME JOKES

phil

YA maybe you could tell field the joke about the elephant, his friend, asking the mouse why he was so small -the mouse replied well i have not been very well-I THINK HE WOULD DO WELL TO HEAR SOME JOKES

field

I really think it's pathetic the way people throw this anti-semitic charge when they start to lose the argument. Presumably since my mentioning the Jewish religious courts and the 2002 Act and drawing a connection between those courts and the operation of Shariah makes me anti-semitic in your book, then you are also going to call David Dimbleby anti-semitic for doing precisely the same on Question Time. I hope you do. As he has a pot of money he might even sue. Phil - any primer in basic logic will do. You could start with the Teach Yourself books. Here's some help. A. Statutes set out formal standards of behaviour which people must adhere to. B. There is a 2002 Statute that sets out a formal standard of behaviour which certain people (including persons married under Jewish law) must adhere to in relation to divorce if the courts so decide. C. There are only informal arrangements in this country for Jewish divorce. Does C sound like a valid inference? Well it was Melanie's on Question Time. Ravi - To depict the 2002 Act as a "voluntary" arrangement is to do violence to the English language. I have to quote the Act again, so people can see I am not making this up: "On the application of either party, the court may order that a decree of divorce is not to be made absolute until a declaration made by both parties that they have taken such steps as are required to dissolve the marriage in accordance with those usages is produced to the court." It is quite clear that although a person may not wish to be divorced according to religious law (not just Jewish law) the court may require that they go through that process. That is not voluntary. Let's leave aside Jewish religious law for the moment. This outrageous statute means potentially that a Muslim judge in a UK court might require a Pakistani woman married at 14 in Pakistan to have her application for divorce heard according to the usages of Islam i.e. Shariah law. If nothing else, this could put her at great physical risk if she was forced to attend a Mosque-based court at a specific time. Dodge all you like - law is a formal requirement and this law can require people to submit to religious usages against their will. You can claim I have "misunderstood" it all you like but the Act is not difficult to understand - it plainly allows for only one person to make the application but BOTH to be subject to the order.

J. Isaacs

Phil - Surely breakfast with the spluttering Bishop of Hulme is the worst punishment yet invented. He already has his finger stuck in his ear. More tea Bishop?

phil

Field you are really extraordinary -if you would have been a boxer you would have been acclaimed for your gameness ,you never give up .EVEN IN A FIGHT YOU CANNOT WIN -do you understand what the word MAY means ,particularly in the context *of what the court MAY require *-now please give up ,both your opponents and the referee want to stop this fight to save you further punishment,and I am sure the other contributors have had enough of all your altercations .Just to finish I have never referred to you as anti-semitic as I really have no idea what you think -so I assume you are referring to others .It is a particularly unpleasant notion and I want no part of it.But I must say if people have a bad opinion of one it is usually the fault of oneself .Try that in your book on logic

Jon_Boy

The impotance placed on propiganda and thought policing by many members of the left wing liberal elite is best exemplified by people like "field". He is constantly and obssesively placing negative points about Melanie on this site. If you disagree with Melanie fine then just don't read her blog then. I don't bother reading the Guardian or Islamist and Communist websites and then constantly leave negative comments. I disagree with them totally but it doesn't simply upset me that they have somewhere to put their views. However it seems to upset many on the left like "Field" that others have somewhere to put across an opposing view. This can also be seen on say the Jerusalem Post where many left wing anti semites regularly leave negative comments. It seems to be an endemic problem within left wing politics that they seek to muzzle all opposition and lable their detractors as Islamophobes or racists (Sorry counter revolutionaries) and are extremely militant in pursuing individuals who disagree with them. The only organisation that upsets me for being completely biased is the BBC as I feel I have no choice offered to me but to fund this insiduous orgaisation. All other left wing mouth pieces I am able to choose not to consume and in turn fund.

June Gibson

As an atheist it gets quite scary to me to see how hot under the collar posters get on the subject I have liked many people from the prominent organised religions because they are very ones who keep a low profile about the matter of their religion. The fundamentalists of all religions are a spiteful lot, all racist in their own ways. They should take a leaf out of the orientals' book (there are a lot here in the UK, remember). They don't keep wanting things, special thises or thats. Another point is that many "reform" Muslims (for want of a better word) came to the UK to escape from various repressive regimes. Bet they were under the misguided impression that our Parliament would stick up for them but they forgot about vote-catching, and the anti-Englishness of our present government. Anyone who thinks that Question Time is biased and woolly-minded ought to have an earful of Any Question on Radio 4.

field

Jon Boy - Me a leftie? Hardly. I think our welfarism is a disaster for one thing. I supported the Iraq war and oppose political correctness. Anyway, don't forget Melanie started out as a leftie herself and still bears many leftie traits I would say. Melanie clearly likes robust debate. I think if I come up with some criticisms I am sure she's not put out. I think of her as an ally on the right side in the current political divide. We both support democracy, oppose political correctness, oppose terrorism, do not believe Saddam had given up his WMD, supported and still support the Iraq war, support Israel, and oppose Islamism. My concern about her position on religious courts is really a tactical issue. Phil - I am sure you would like me to give up, so you don't have to face the contradictions in your position. Of course I understand it is for the UK Court to decide whether or not to support the application i.e. it MAY do so. I have made frequent reference to that. So what? Try a thought experiment - let's suppose that we had a situation where there was provision for a UK court to decide whether or not to try a Muslim thief according to Shariah law and have their hands cut off if found guilty by the Shariah court. Is that OK? After all it's the UK court that has the discretion to decide whether the person is tried and punished according to Shariah? You place great emphasis on the discretionary power of the UK court, but the real focus should be firstly on whether people are submitting to the religious court voluntarily. What we have in the statute is quite clearly two aspects: 1. The right of INDIVIDUALS to make an application for their divorce to be heard by a religious court. 2. The discretionary power of the UK royal court to decide whether to refer the case to the religious court and whether to approve a final settlement on the basis of the religious court's decision. The discretionary element is frankly trivial. The important thing is that an individual (one who has not made the application) can be FORCED to go through the religious court process, even though they might have apostasised since their marriage. That seems quite wrong to me and possibly dangerous for people who are trying to escape mind control regimes.

phil

Field I can see you will not give up and as I feel I have battered you enough i will say no more on the point at which we disagree-everyone else who has posted agrees with me so enough my friend .You wrote some sense at last about Melanie so I applaud you for that and maybe now you can continue posting on subjects that we all have an interest in as the vast majority here just want a better life,as no doubt you do -keep it simple

field

Phil - I get the feeling that even if a bull elephant were sat on top of you, you would still endeavour somehow to patronise him: "There, there, my good fellow: no doubt you think you're very big and strong and all the rest of it, but I think you've had your fun and games and better stop now, as I clearly have the better of you..."

phil

Field dont give up your day job -your jokes are as understandable as your posts -read the mouse and the elephant one -at least it is a joke -dont worry my boy ,I enjoy our banter,no bad feeling from me

Ravi

field is the ONLY person who believes the word "may" conveys a mandatory action. Upon that grammatical mistake rests his/her persistence in having the last word - despite being wrong. British Law does NOT recognise a Jewish Divorce. Its clear from the even the text you quoted. If neither party mentioned obtaining a Jewish Divorce then British Law couldn't care less. If either of the parties requesting a decree absolute says "Hand on a minute, he refuses to grant me a Jewish Divorce" then the court MAY request that both parties confirm that they are honestly seeking one and they take them at their word, and grant the absolute. Read it AGAIN!

field

Ravi - YOu cannot win an argument by distorting your opponent's position. You can only lose your self respect by doing that. It is quite clear from all my posts that I fully understand what "may" means in this context. It is, as I have said, a discretionary power. But once exercised it means that an apostate can be forced against his or her will to submit to the usages of a particular religion. It is quite clear from the rest of the Act that you are wrong to say the declaration is taken on trust. Read this: "A declaration of a kind mentioned in subsection (2)— (a) must be in a specified form; (b) must, in specified cases, be accompanied by such documents as may be specified; and (c) must, in specified cases, satisfy such other requirements as may be specified" So this specified form will likely be something like "bearing the seal of the Chief Rabbi" or similar. In any case there's no question of it being "taken on trust" as you imply. We have an apostate being forced to submit to religious usages he or she no longer observes.

Jonathan JJ

Refreshing!Pardon my ignorance but never heard of you before.Your astuteness and grasp of the issues in hand was poetical....gosh ...don't think I've given such praise since junior school. looking forward to your books/blog