BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
'Government approval' doesn't equal public approval.

If the British Government is ultimately responsible for the appointment of the legal representatives/arbitrators of Sharia law then there is always the risk that Muslims will not accept their judgements as valid or agreeable, particularly if the arbitrators have been selected on account of their westernised and liberal traits that are not always shared by the rest of the Muslim population. The situation is then that the 'official bodies' will be ignored and Muslims in need of dispute resolution will simply go back to the more conservative clerics in their mosques as they always have done.
GOES AGAINST BRITISH VALUES AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION

This would be tyranny of the minority and would exclude the right to freedom of religion as it would force laws from ONE RELIGION upon people, rather than having liberal laws that allow for freedom of religion. We should respect freedom of religion by allowing Muslims to practice their religion in peace, while they allow us the same right. Why would we even consider applying Sharia Law when followers of Islam are very much in the minority in Britain - if we are considering Sharia law, should we not consider new laws that make everyone follow Christian principles, such as 'love thy neighbour' and no sex before marriage. But more important, why are we considering adopting something that goes against all of our democratic beliefs and rights - freedom of religion. More importantly, Sharia law will take away more of our fundamental human rights and allows for capital punishment - something against the European Charter of Human Rights, along with other infringements. Why bring these laws in? We have VOTED over centuries for our existing laws. This would be undemocratic and wrong, and would only be right if we had a referendum and a majority voted in favour (which, obviously, would not happen!). Unless this happens, adopting Sharia law would be undemocratic and conflict with our existing commitments to the European Union, their Charter of Human Rights, and human rights in general.
There is no need for Sharia law.

The adoption of a supplementary legal framework for certain legal issues is not dangerous, when only applied to Muslims. Ultimately, the Parliamentary recognition of this field as a legal mechanism is not a huge step towards some sort of oppression or lack of integration but is more of a formality. Instead it would allow Muslims to engage with the legal system further if Sharia elements were brought into the legal code. Sharia law introduced various human rights and civil liberties long before the European and American revolutions and the move towards the legal frameworks, rights and political systems that exist in the Western world today. The Muslim and democratic state of Malaysia, for example, has different laws that apply to non-Muslims to those that apply to Muslims under sharia. The system has generally been a success, and would present an opportunity to engage all minorities within Britain. Moreover, there is a strong possibility that non-Muslims would turn to the Sharia legal elements within English law because of expediency and its emphasis on justice and negotiation. Arguably, but perhaps too wishfully, if the British public were able to gain a (greater) understanding of Sharia law it would allow for social cohesion and integration and cross-cultural dialogue, instead of non-Muslims automatically viewing Sharia as an out of date legal practice.
There is room for improvement in any legal system

National laws should always be open to any improvements or adjustments for the benefit of the dynamic society. There is no harm in considering to adopt the positive aspects of another legal system, regardless of the authority that devised it. It should not be a debate about religion and religious rules, but about the system of rules that work best for society. And there is always a 'need' for continuous improvement in any system. Therefore, certain aspects of Sharia law that would be good for the society should be considered for adoption.
Sharia jurisprudence would not allow for Sharia to be adopted in the UK

Sharia jurisprudence dictates that Sharia Law is to be adopted in states where the overwhelming majority of the population are Muslims. Therefore, Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are quite right to have a legal system based on Sharia. A state with a mixture of Muslim and non-Muslim inhabitants can either have Sharia law for Muslims and a different legal code for non-Muslims or it can adopt a 'secular' code for all citizens. There cannot be an imposition of Sharia on non-Muslims. Muslims that are a minority in a state are required to follow the rules of the land they live in as long they do not require Muslims to carry out an activity that would be illegal under Sharia. So, until Britain adopts a law requiring Muslims to drink alcohol the British legal system is fair and appropriate enough for Muslims and people of other faiths to accept and follow it without the need for further provisions.
Interfering with a species for cosmetic reasons is poor practice

Actually, to your point, tigers ARE poodles in this case. If you're making the point that they are being bred as boutique animals for little more than show and status, than any purebred pet applies as well. Like the white tiger, they are selectively bred and inbred to maintain colorings and body types often with little regard to the health and well-being of the animal. What is the criteria for determining which animals can be "tinkered" with and which should remain in their natural state? And I'll agree, there is an element of vanity involved, but there's vanity in the baby panda cams, or any special exhibit built around a zoo's new and rare acquisition. But that vanity can serve a purpose to educate and publicize causes to which the public might not otherwise care.
Nearly all White Tigers born in captivity are born with birth defects...

Often, due to the intended inbreeding of white tigers, the offspring are born with birth defects. Nearly all white tiger cubs are cross-eyed or have facial deformities. It is known that white tigers are bred for entertainment purposes. White Tigers are a mystery to many humans and, often, people do not know that White Tiger is little more than a genetic mistake. All people see is the striking color and the bright eyes. These qualities alone draw crowds at zoos, which is the reason zoos continue to inbreed their tigers. It is wrong and it serves no purpose in conservation. In fact it just creates more problems for the tiger population. Imperfect cubs with facial deformities and dental deformities are often casted out or abandoned because of their birth defects. This alone is an act of animal cruelty. With the odds of 19 of 20 White Tiger cubs being imperfect, only 1 animal stands to have a good life while the others face a life of abandonment. White Tigers were meant to happen naturally. Not forced. For White Tigers to appear in the wild, ON THEIR OWN, is a miracle- a miracle of natural selection when it comes to Tiger mating. By forcing inbreeding, breeders are doing more harm than good. The fertile female tigers could be bred with other tigers from other lineage to create healthy and prosperous cubs that could improve the tiger’s standings on the red list. The creation of unhealthy, deformed cubs is a waste of fertile female tiger litters (which are limitted). Breeders of captive White Tigers are committing an act of animal cruelty that results in abandoned animals and it should be banned completely. If these statements are not enough fact for you... Please, do yourself a favor and refer to BigCatRescue.com. They are very informative on the issue. They also show pictures of the lives abandoned cats are forced to live and the deformities that plague them. The pictures will do more than make you gasp. It's not only fact, it's photographic proof. In fact, the url to their article is: http://www.bigcatrescue.org/cats/wild/white_tigers.htm
White tigers help educate people about conservation

White tigers may have no genetic conservation value, but they make up for this with their educational value. As mentioned in the summary, they are many people's favourite animal. Their presence in a zoo draws in visitors, who then have the chance to learn about animal welfare and the difficulties facing wild tigers, if not the tigers they see before them. Additionally, in response to your first point re: square footage, as proven in your second point, having space does nothing for the tiger's safety either as they are hunted in the wild, not just as pets, but for their pelts, claws and teeth, or to remove them from unprotected land marked for development. It's a fallacy to point to the dwindling numbers and blame them on a need to satisfy someone's ego. Left exclusively in the wild, the population would diminish past the point of self-sufficiency regardless of the wild pet craze. It may take longer, but as that was the trend before they became popular, it stands to reason that it would continue after. And setting aside the personal menageries for a moment, with the current rate of decimation, if it weren't for the zoo's breeding programs (white or other), there would be no hope for the species at all. And your question at the end somewhat defeats itself as well as makes a gross assumption about your audience. White tigers are a symbol people focus on, and being able to see them in the flesh keeps people interested in animals and conservation. While the price of my zoo admission may not go directly to tiger conservation, my attendance is noted. The more people visiting zoos, the more grants they can earn and donations they can raise and those funds do go directly to animal conservation. And not just for the tigers.
Breeding white tigers has no conservation value

White tigers are only rarely found in the wild, because they have trouble camouflaging themselves. The last one was shot in 1951 in India, and although they could well reappear from time to time due to an isolated group of tigers becoming inbred in the wild they will always be at a disadvantage. Any breeders genuinely interested in conserving tigers would be better placed breeding tigers with the more usual orange colouring. The inbreeding white tigers have been subjected to has weakened the bloodline to the point where it is of no value. Either the tigers have too many genetic abnormalities, or they have been bred with other subspecies to create hybrids which are of no use to conserving an individual subspecies. To quote from Dr. Ron Tilson, Conservation Director of the Minnesota Zoo and manager of the world renown Tiger Species Survival Plan, "The white tiger controversy among zoos is a small part ethics and a large part economics. The tiger Species Survival Plan has condemned breeding white tigers because of their mixed ancestry, most have been hybridized with other subspecies and are of unknown lineage, and because they serve no conservation purpose. Owners of white tigers say they are popular exhibit animals and increase zoo attendance and revenues as well. The same rationalization can be applied to the selective propagation of white lions, king cheetahs and other phenotypically aberrant animals." As for breeding tigers of any color, Ron Tilson says, “For private owners to say, ‘We’re saving tigers,’ is a lie,” Tilson says. “They are not saving tigers; they’re breeding them for profit.” Tilson says the exotic animal market is a multimillion dollar industry, ranking just below the illegal drug trade and just above the illegal gun market. Tilson says tigers are the most charismatic animal on earth. Their appeal is universal. “They are the alpha predator who used to kill and eat us,” he says. “We cannot help but be in awe of their power and grace. Tigers represent everything fine and decent and powerful. Everything those people would like to be. It’s all an ego trip—big guns, big trucks, and big tigers.”
Inbreeding has caused white tigers excessive suffering

As well as weakening their bloodline, inbreeding has also led to a great many medical problems in white tigers. Just as pet dogs are over-refined to the point of deafness or breathing problems, white tigers have their own problems. A common example is eye problems, which can cause the animal a great amount of suffering and can even lead to blindness. Deliberately breeding an animal in the knowledge that its life will be unnecessarily painful is cruel, and is a practice that should have no place in modern animal care. White Tigers can only exist in captivity by continual inbreeding, such as father to daughter, brother to sister, mother to son and so forth. The white lions and golden tabby tigers are merely a product of this practice of inbreeding for white coats as well and are not being bred for any sort of conservation program either. ALL white tigers are cross eyed, whether it shows or not, because the gene that causes the white coat always causes the optic nerve to be wired to the wrong side of the brain. That is why white tigers are such a favorite of the tiger-tamer-wanabees; they are far more dependent upon their masters. Consider this: Only 1 in 4 tiger cubs from a white tiger bred to an orange tiger carrying the white gene are born white, and 80% of those die from birth defects associated with the inbreeding necessary to cause a white coat. Of those surviving, most have such profound birth defects, such as immune deficiency, scoliosis of the spine (distorted spine), cleft palates, mental impairments and grotesquely crossed eyes that bulge from their skull that only a small percentage are suitable for display. Due to these birth defects the white tigers often die an early death. According to some tiger trainers, only 1 in 30 of those white cats will consistently perform. The number of tigers that have to be produced and disposed of in order to fill the public’s desire to see white tigers on display is staggering. http://www.bigcatrescue.org/cats/wild/white_tigers.htm
Interfering with a species for cosmetic reasons is poor practice

Tigers aren't poodles - they are wild animals, and they don't need improvement. If people can't see that they are already one of the most beautiful animals in the world, then perhaps they don't have any business working with them. Tinkering with their genes in order to 'improve' them is just an act of vanity on the part of humans, a symptom of the mentality that if we don't like something we can order it in a different colour. We need to learn to appreciate the animals in their natural state. In an online poll, the public has shown a strong aversion to the practice of breeding white tigers. Should animals be inbred to create coat colors that do not survive in the wild? Answers Votes Percent Yes 186 9% No 1990 91%
White tigers help educate people about conservation

Tigers and other big cats were not designed for life in cages. Siberian Tigers will roam 400 square miles in the wild. There is no cage environment that gives them the level of freedom and stimulation that is their birthright. Those who justify keeping exotic animals in cages as a way to make people care about them in the wild obviously don't know much about big cats. A captive bred and caged big cat is a mere shadow of who their wild counterparts are and any lesson learned by watching a tiger in a cage is based upon faulty information. As for the age old line that people will only protect what they care about, and thus some cats have to suffer decades of deprivation and abuse for the good of all tigers, can be laid to rest now. There is no big cat more common in zoos and back yard menageries than the tiger and at the current rate of poaching of one tiger a day and less than 4,000 left in the wild it is abundantly clear that keeping tigers in cages did nothing to save them in the wild. The numbers don't lie. In this online poll the statistics prove that seeing big cats in cages does not have a positive impact on saving them in the wild. Zoos say that having animals in cages causes people to support them in the wild. Based upon the amount of money that you have given to protect habitat, based upon seeing an animal in a cage, would you say this is True or False? Answers Votes Percent True 1372 34% False 2684 66%
Sanctions are pointless and counterproductive. They’ve made no political difference in the last 43 y...

Sanctions are pointless and counterproductive. They’ve made no political difference in the last 43 years, why would they now? They mean that the US can be blamed for all the failures of the Cuban economy and to justify repressive measures for security, and therefore encourage the retrenchment of both. President Bush claims to want to empower civil society in Cuba but in 1998 he argued that the best way to achieve this in China was to trade and spread ‘American values.’ Cuba’s geographical and cultural proximity makes it very likely to change fast when given access to Americans and their wealth.
There are no legitimate grounds for Cuba to be sanctioned as opposed to many other states. There is ...

There are no legitimate grounds for Cuba to be sanctioned as opposed to many other states. There is no evidence that Cuba is a sponsor of terror. Cuba has no biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. Cuba holds fewer prisoners of conscience than China, Vietnam, Iran, or even Egypt. To maintain sanctions in order to change the form of government, as the United States claims it does, is totally illegitimate under International Law and, moreover, Cuba is in no sense the only undemocratic country in the world. Cuba has offered to compensate the U.S. citizens whose property was nationalised in 1959. America has never explained the threat posed by Cuba that requires these sanctions.
Sanctions on Cuba are illegal and damage America’s International standing. They violate the UN Chart...

Sanctions on Cuba are illegal and damage America’s International standing. They violate the UN Charter, laws on the freedom of navigation, and repeated United Nations resolutions since 1992 (passed with only the US and Israel in opposition). Furthermore, some parts of the Helms-Burton Act are extra-territorial in their effects on businessmen from third nations and therefore cause significant protest around the world. This makes a mockery of the US claim to be a guardian of International Law, not only in its dealings with Cuba but also in the negotiations over the future of Iraq. America could achieve its goals internationally more easily if it was not marked with evidence of its lack of respect for International Law.
Sanctions are not the will of the American people but of a small minority of embittered Cuban Americ...

Sanctions are not the will of the American people but of a small minority of embittered Cuban Americans in Florida who are being pandered to. National opinion generally expresses no preference or opposes the ban. Congress recently voted by 262-167 to repeal the Travel Ban to Cuba but will be thwarted by the insistence of George W. Bush that the ban remain. This is electioneering government at its worst.
The sanctions cause real and unacceptable harm to the Cuban people. In the 1990’s Cuba lost $70 Bn i...

Sanctions didn’t cause the economic failure in Cuba. The communist political and economic system has been shown to lead to economic collapse all over the world, whether sanctions are in place or not. Even if sanctions were lifted, lack of private ownership, foreign exchange and tradable commodities would hold Cuba back. The International Trade Commission found a ‘minimal effect on the Cuban economy’ from sanctions. In fact, it is by using sanctions to pressure Cuba into economic and political reform that the US can best contribute to an economic recovery there.
Sanctions are pointless and counterproductive. They’ve made no political difference in the last 43 y...

Sanctions are a proven policy tool and can pressure a regime that is extremely repressive into reforms. Aggressive U.S. engagement and pressure contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Bloc and it can work again. Sanctions are also, according to Colin Powell, a ‘moral statement’ of America’s disapproval for the Castro regime. Blaming America for all economic woes didn’t trick ordinary Russians and it won’t trick the Cubans. Now is exactly the time that the United States should be tightening down the screws so that Castro’s successor is forced to make real changes.
There are no legitimate grounds for Cuba to be sanctioned as opposed to many other states. There is ...

Cuba is a repressive regime which operates one party rule, holds political prisoners and stifles opposition and economic freedom through constant harassment. The Cuban administration refused to give help with the search for Al-Qaeda suspects and is on the U.S. list of sponsors of terror, not least because it provides a safe haven to many American fugitives. Cuba is known to have a developmental biological weapons ‘effort’ and is recorded as breaking international sanctions to export dual use technologies to Iran. Finally, Cuba has failed to stop drug shipments through its waters and its government profits directly from resources stolen from United States citizens in 1959.
Sanctions on Cuba are illegal and damage America’s International standing. They violate the UN Chart...

America is attempting to protect the rights of its own citizens and of the Cubans enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If it breaks International law it is only to hold up that aim for which International law also aims. The United Nations Resolutions condemning the sanctions have never passed through the Security Council and therefore lack any authority. America’s status as a guardian of human rights and an enemy of terror is enhanced by its moral refusal to compromise with a repressive government just off its own shores.
The United States will also benefit from the opening of trade with Cuba economically. Mid-Western R...

Cuba will never make up more than a tiny percentage of America’s trade and it is able to source and sell all the products it needs elsewhere. Even if Cuba was a vital market for American goods it would be worth giving up some economic growth in order to maintain a commitment to the freedom of the Cuban people. As it is, the total Cuban GDP is a drop in the ocean and this point is almost entirely irrelevant.
The sanctions cause real and unacceptable harm to the Cuban people. In the 1990’s Cuba lost $70 Bn i...

The sanctions cause real and unacceptable harm to the Cuban people. In the 1990’s Cuba lost $70 Bn in trade and $1.2 Bn in international loans because of U.S. sanctions. Cuba is too poor a country not to suffer from these losses. The dominance of America in the pharmaceuticals industry, moreover, means that it is actually impossible for Cubans to gain access to many drugs. America would be the natural market for most Cuban products, and its refusal to accept goods with even the tiniest Cuban inputs from third nations damages Cuba’s ability to trade with others. Other South American countries have shown their reliance on the types of loans that Cuba is denied in the last few years to keep their economies on track.
Despite the generally prevailing principle of freedom of speech in democratic countries, it is widel...

Despite the generally prevailing principle of freedom of speech in democratic countries, it is widely accepted that certain types of speech are not given protection as they are deemed to be of insufficient value compared to the harm, they cause. Child pornography in the print or broadcast media for instance is never tolerated. The internet should be no exception to these basic standards. Truly offensive material such as hardcore pornography and extreme racial hatred are no different simply because they are published on the world wide web as opposed to a book or video.