Sharia (Islamic Law) in Great Britain

[needsmosleep]

Wow thats horrible. Any step towards emulating Islamic law is a huge step backwards. Screw 400 years of civil rights movements, lets just be brutal and biased. England why?

 

[Serious_Stalin]

I think if you come to a country you should be tried under their laws and justice system. Its a silly matter, i'm never going to end up in a Sharia court, so i'm not bothered if muslims find the Sharia court unfair then I think they are in their rights to have their case made in a UK court instead.
British justice is based on Christian beliefs anyoway, I see Islam and Christianity as pretty similar religions in many ways. But my opinion is religion was just an easy way to make the masses follow the laws of common sense and it just got twisted along the way.

 

[needsmosleep]

Can you tolerate everything? Isn' there a distinction between right and wrong. If I said I vastly superior to women and non-muslims, in fact I'm so superior beating them senselessly is okay. Theres a reason, after 400 years of social reform we don't do this shit anymore

 

[BigKingBob]

The reaction to this is staggering. This has been perfectly legal for years, disputes over contracts between two jewish parties are commonly resolved under jewish law by arbitration by a council of rabbi's. This sort of thing is accepted practice in the british jewish community.

It needs to be stressed that this is only optional and is only legally binding if both cases agree for it to be legally binding. Also as the article says this is only binding under civil and minor criminal cases. Any major crimes are, always have been and always will be the business of the legal and judicial systems of the UK.

It is strange that there seems to be no issue with jewish and other religious communities practising this style of arbitration but as soon as the (rather sizeable) muslim community of the UK starts to use their legally protected rights to govern amongst themselves there is a massive outpouring of anti-muslim sentiment and jingoism

Now I'd understand the furore if it was forced arbitration by lightsaber duel (Jedi-ism is the UK's 4th largest religion) but this is a choice by the concerned parties in the same way that they chose their religion and chose their spouses.

This is the UK, one of the most free, fair and safe societies in the world.

I might not agree with what they say and do, but as an Englishman and a British citizen, it is my right, duty and pleasure to defend to the death their right to choose it

 

[The Iron Ninja]

(I realise the futility of arguing with Khell Sennet but here goes)

Wouldn't the best thing to do be accepting their alternative views, and going the opposite way to what happens in many other countries. Wouldn't that make us morally superior and therefore awesome? Just because we don't kill someone doesn't make us right.

One doesn't have to be a Nativist loony like Khell to see something troubling in bringing in Islamic law. Some alternative views should be accepted, and some should not. The ones that should not are the ones that really shouldn't be accepted in *any* country. No matter how much something like, say, wife-beating may be a part of any 'culture', a government--any government--can never recognize it because a government must protect the rights of the individuals it has jurisdiction over. And wives as it turns out are individuals just the same as their husbands or their religious clerics.

On the other hand, there can be plenty of accommodation--think of Quakers who don't have to take an Oath of office, but only have to make an Affirmation; or having standardized testing available on both Saturdays and Sundays to accommodate Jews. The dividing line is when a religious person is trying to get the government to get *someone else* to do something against that other person's will, and not when a religious person is simply asking the government to let them do something that is their own will.

It really depends on how rigid these laws are, if it's just something that they can choose to follow that's fine. But then you would have the problem of switching back and forth between the different laws to whichever one suits their needs...

You know what? I've changed my mind. This is a bad idea.

 

[TheBadass]

This is nonsensical to me. I can't wrap my American head around it. So I can go to the UK, set up a courtroom in a garage somewhere, and preside over criminal cases all I want?

...No.

Well, yes--

Maybe.

It's not like they can allow wife beating people, get that idea out of your head. The second someone tries to pass someone for that the whole system would be revoked as it would be seen as an abuse of power.

The examples given in the article included wife beating.

I'm amazed I missed that.

I've gone from being mildly amused to extremely disturbed in about five seconds. That's fucked up, seriously.

 

[Wicky_42]

I would see my self as having a liberal outlook on life, and thought my conservative uncle was overreacting when he was going on about a 'Islamic Invasion'... and, well, he kinda was, but to be honest this completely shocks me. Why should any minority group be allowed the option of circumventing the laws of the country in which they live? If those laws aren't good enough for them then pick a different country. Surely it's obvious that violence and pressure can be applied to force a weak person, eg an abused wife, into forgoing the normal course of justice, forcing them away from a system designed to fairly and justly help people (ideally, heh), and into a foreign country's legal system with no relation to the society in which they live and mediated over by potentially prejudiced, unregulated arbitrators.

I just don't understand how this was allowed to come about... I'm pretty sure Labour didn't run for government on a 'subvert English laws' ticket.

 

[The Wooster]

Before all you angry white people start shrieking (whoops too late) read deeper.

The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

 

[Amnestic]

Before all you angry white people start shrieking (whoops too late) read deeper.

The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

But as stated, how much stock would we put in an abused wife agreeing to it of her own choice, really?

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

There's a difference between extending multicultural tolerance towards new immigrants, and allowing new immigrants to wind up just as oppressed in their new country as they were in their old country.

Tell me then, how do we strike a balance?

How do we convince the abused that they are abused? Or should we not bother convincing them? Should we act on their behalf against their express wishes? "For their own good"?

Don't you see how dark that path is, and to the place it will lead us?

 

[BigKingBob]

Now I'd understand the furore if it was forced arbitration by lightsaber duel (Jedi-ism is the UK's 4th largest religion) but this is a choice by the concerned parties in the same way that they chose their religion and chose their spouses.

The problem is that there's might be as little choice involved for the concerned parties in picking these courts over regular civil courts as these parties had in choosing their religion or their spouse...

But the idea is that none of the parties involved can be forced into it. If a muslim women is being abused and lodges a complaint against her abuser then she can do just that. She is under no pressure to use a shariah court just because she's muslim. I would agree with you if it were the case that as a muslim you have to go through the shariah courts unless you opt-out but the reality is that you have to opt-in to the shariah preceedings.

She is under no more pressure (legally of course, socially is a different thing but that is another matter all together) to take it through the islamic courts than I am (as a practicing Jedi Knight.) The priests and clerics running the show can no more force orthodoxy on her than they can force her to be a muslim. She always has the option of it but the default is the british common law court.

Now it may be the case that some work needs to be done by the government/council/social services/community leaders to remove the societal pressure but that should in no way infringe upon her ability to exercise her rights under english law.

 

[werepossum]

they not legal binding if they violate UK laws, and both sides have to agree to it, orthodox jews have had something similar in place for over a century, and the state funds religious schools that teach religious orthodoxy why should the legal system be any different?

Here's a source for that: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

Also, Jewish and Catholic courts in Ontario: http://www.religioustolerance.org/shariaon.htm

I also know that Jewish courts exist in Brooklyn in the USA, but the best source I could find was a ruling about Kosher foods.

+++++

I think the issue that exists with Islamic courts that does not exist with Jewish courts is that Jewish courts have never been used as a wedge into government to try and change the government. Jewish courts have always been for communities that want to live apart from the general population to some extent. On the other hand, the people who want Islamic courts are very much interested in using these courts as a kind of stepping-stone for greater change--these aren't people who want to live apart from the general population, these are people who are basically in a kulturekampf with anyone that is not them.

Well said. I'd only add that (1) Orthodox Jews don't express the view that the world should be ruled under Jewish law and one day will be be ruled under Jewish law, (2) Rabbis don't issue death sentences on non-Jews, cut off hands, or topple walls on people, and (3) Jewish law does not make a wife the property of her husband. (In fact, Jewish law speaks much more of husbandly obligations and duties than of the same for wives. For instance, Jewish law requires the husband to provide sex two or three times per week; I forget which, I'm not Jewish. There is no corresponding requirement on wives.) These differences, both real and perceived, cause more emotional responses to Sharia courts than to Jewish courts.

That said, I'll repeat once again - these are voluntary only, and agreements will presumably be at the discretion of the local authorities. If a Muslim puts his wife in the hospital, I'm guessing (hoping, anyway) that Sharia court will not be an option no matter how much she "deserved it" under Sharia. And I don't think these courts will have the ability to change UK law except in as much as one's rights may be waived in any arbitration. Speculation on future precedent is all well and good, but it is speculation.

 

[Joshimodo]

Ok, I've been gingerly avoiding any rants, comments, etc regarding Muslims and their beliefs, but for fuck's sake!

Britain is NOT your country. It is the homeland of the English, it is THEIR land. To come into their nation and try to change the laws to match those of YOUR homeland is the same as treason in my eyes, or at the least, an invasion.

I am quite happy to welcome peoples from other nations into my homeland, but I draw the line when they try to change my nation into theirs. I'm sure there's a fair number of Brits who feel that way for their nation, and as a Canadian, I'm seeing the same things happening over here. If you want to immigrate to Canada, it must be because you want to BE CANADIAN. Same goes for ANY nation. Don't go to another country with the intent of changing things to suit you, you are the guest in that land, not the master. Live by the laws of the land, respect the customs of the people there, and they will in turn hopefully respect your customs and way. But when it comes to a contention point between your ways and theirs, it's THEIR country. Fit in, or GET OUT.

This is not a hate speech, this is about respect and privilege. As someone not born of a nation, you are in that country as a privilege. To expect anyone to conform to your customs/beliefs is a violation of the privilege granted to you, and severe disrespect to that country.

I have no problems with Muslims. I have no special dislike of them, and I can for the most part respect their ways. But it ends when they try to change my homeland and its laws to better suit them. If you aren't here to BE Canadian, you shouldn't be here. It's not just to Muslims I say this, but to any immigrant of any race, religion, or creed. And the same applies in Britain, if you aren't there to live the British life, move back to your nation of origin.

Agreed 100%.

But, to all Americans and foreigners reading this, note that the people of Britain/United Kingdom are NOT ENGLISH. They are British, which means they are English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish.

Britain is NOT your country. It is the homeland of the English

It's the homeland of the British. England is the homeland of the English.

 

[The Wooster]

Before all you angry white people start shrieking (whoops too late) read deeper.

The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Some of us have [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.71605?page=2#730984] and we are still shrieking. We are also still white.

Really, isn't allowing a Sharia court to be an arbitration tribunal in domestic law kind of like allowing an industry association to be an arbitration tribunal in products liability law?

Just because someone agrees to give a body the power to rule doesn't mean they should necessarily be bound by that decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_clause

I considerably doubt the person facing an industry asociation would agree to said abritration tribunal.

On another note spousal abuse should always be a criminal matter. A domestic abuse case should never come into these courts.

Edit: Sorry for the angry white men comment. Shitty day at work. This topic still sounds like 10pm at the queens arms though.

 

[BigKingBob]

Now I'd understand the furore if it was forced arbitration by lightsaber duel (Jedi-ism is the UK's 4th largest religion) but this is a choice by the concerned parties in the same way that they chose their religion and chose their spouses.

The problem is that there's might be as little choice involved for the concerned parties in picking these courts over regular civil courts as these parties had in choosing their religion or their spouse...

She is under no more pressure (legally of course, socially is a different thing but that is another matter all together) to take it through the islamic courts than I am (as a practicing Jedi Knight.)

Exactly--and courts don't turn a blind eye to coercive pressure just because it's non-legal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_clause

Why should a Muslim wife have less legal rights than a consumer who doesn't like their cell phone plan? [http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/contractsprof_blog/2006/01/so_cal_district.html]

I realize English law is different from America law, but I'm guessing they have the concept of contracts of adhesion in English law as well?

Erm, honestly couldn't say as I have no grounding in law.

If you could tell me what an "adhesion clause" is and whether Britain has them or not then I could jump back in but I'm kinda floundering... (which is disappointing as I was really getting into this debate)

Sorry!