Britain adopts Sharia law. Is this true?

[InsaneApache]

Until it appears on the BBC I don't buy it.

Priceless.

[Banquo's Ghost]

So let me get this straight.

The law says that you are allowed to choose any arbitration method you like, literally anything at all including appeals to the Jedi council, so long as the judgement doesn't contradict any established British laws.

But because some people are choosing Sharia courts I'm supposed to be outraged?

There is actually a story behind this headline, and it is not particularly about Muslim Shari'a but about informed consent.

The arbitration panels are, as noted, not different than other special interest panels. However, it is extremely difficult to ensure that all participants - especially the women - are making the decision to allow jurisdiction freely. It is undeniable that Muslim traditionalists see women as subservient to men and it would be quite hard for a woman to refuse the arbitration of the Shari'a based panel without a very serious impact on her community and family life. It is also undeniable that many Muslim women respect Shari'a as a model for their conduct.

The hard part is differentiating between the two and the spectrum in between. Just expressing consent for arbitration is not enough.

My view is that no religious communities should have any extra privileges in the justice system. This includes removing bishops from the Lords, blasphemy laws and disestablishing the Church of England. All the Abrahamic religions discriminate against women in some manner, and none of them have a place in modern legal practice at any level whatsoever.

[Big_John]

Oh, and EMFM, the Times and Sun are both Newscorp (or at least Murdoch owned).

honestly, i have no reason not to believe the story. i mean, yeah, newscorp is a sad, sad joke. but this is such a non-story, that it being slow to pop up elsewhere isn't any kind of contraindication, imo.

[JR-]

Oh, and EMFM, the Times and Sun are both Newscorp (or at least Murdoch owned). The Mail makes both of those look like a bunch of tree-hugging lefties and will happily reprint any story so long as it's about Muslims. Until it appears on the BBC I don't buy it.

while i loath the republican Murdoch i consider the BBC to be equally biased in its lefty-liberal* way.

i will believe it when it is shown in both left and right wing press.





*of the greenpeace-accredited and tofu-nibbling variety.

[PBI]

Yes, that was actually my point.

I simply take issue with the implied assertion that it is only the left-leaning media that carries bias.

[Fragony]

Until it appears on the BBC I don't buy it.

By the way, bravo http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...in-Europe.html

[ICantSpellDawg]

There is actually a story behind this headline, and it is not particularly about Muslim Shari'a but about informed consent.

The arbitration panels are, as noted, not different than other special interest panels. However, it is extremely difficult to ensure that all participants - especially the women - are making the decision to allow jurisdiction freely. It is undeniable that Muslim traditionalists see women as subservient to men and it would be quite hard for a woman to refuse the arbitration of the Shari'a based panel without a very serious impact on her community and family life. It is also undeniable that many Muslim women respect Shari'a as a model for their conduct.

The hard part is differentiating between the two and the spectrum in between. Just expressing consent for arbitration is not enough.

My view is that no religious communities should have any extra privileges in the justice system. This includes removing bishops from the Lords, blasphemy laws and disestablishing the Church of England. All the Abrahamic religions discriminate against women in some manner, and none of them have a place in modern legal practice at any level whatsoever.

I've got to agree. Religion is great, but it should never be enforced by secular law even as a modular system.

[HoreTore]

I've got to agree. Religion is great, but it should never be enforced by secular law even as a modular system.

I don't really see this system as "law". I see it like what my mother did when I argued with my younger brother as a kid.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't really see this system as "law". I see it like what my mother did when I argued with my younger brother as a kid.

That could be a good example actually.

but it wasn't enforceable by law, right? I don't mind the civil cases all that much. What I do mind is that they are talking about hearing criminal cases. In no way was my mother able to say "go to your room for 2 years for killing that man" - the law stepped in. If she found marijuana she could punish me - If the police found marijuana they could punish me.

We'll see. As it is now it isn't the end of the world at all - but you have to be careful. Things can get out of control, Islam is a much more formidable opponent to the system than the British Jews were.

Think of it like spilling a bucket of water in your home vs leaving the window open in a hurricane. The other side says "Its just water! The bucket didn't mess much up, did it?"

[Fragony]

Think of it like spilling a bucket of water in your home vs leaving the window open in a hurricane. The other side says "Its just water! The bucket didn't mess much up, did it?"

Well said. And again we are arguing about what's so wrong with it, not quite so much really when taken as an isolated event. I wonder when muslims in England will be excused from paying taxes, it is against their religion after. 5 years or so.

[Kralizec]

As said, this isn't different from other cases arbritration based on mutual consent. Except that these cases are based on inherently discriminatory ethics, and we're left to assume that the one's on the short end of the stick gave their consent freely under no duress.

I'm pretty sure that the bit about meddling with criminal law is bullox. Some crimes like domestic violence can't really be prosecuted if the victim doesn't chose to report it. If the victim of sexual harassment decides to accept a mediated compromise by the community's old fart elder where he says that the "other party" will have to pay $10 and promise not to do it again, it's still partly the victims fault for going along with such retarded customs instead of going to the police.

In short: this sort of thing has been possible for a long time, of course it's incredibly unfair to women but unless there's reason to assume that a particular woman was forced into accepting arbritration we'll just have to accept that it's their decision to be treated as second class members of their community.

[Fragony]

I'm pretty sure that the bit about meddling with criminal law is bullox.

It's England. Agree with the rest though.

[Louis VI the Fat]

We have this same 'Shock! Sharia in Britain!' - thread every three months in the Backroom.

Tribes is right - EA gave a good legal explanation in a previous installment of this 'news'. I remember it well. Adrian summarised it on page one. The more interesting aspect to me is the Rabbit / IA / Ghost concern: what of matters of consent, especially of women?

Sharia law does not consider all it's subjects as equals. It is distinctly biased towards some. This inequality is also prevalent amongst those who (try to) live by tribal / Islamic customs, the very people most likely to arbitrate their cases in accordance with Sharia law. And whose unequality is notable in their lives. Stories abound of semi-illiterate Islamic women, confined to their households by their husbands, brothers and cousins. They are not, and this is the crux, well versed enough in the British legal system to understand the consequences. There is a clear and present danger that the British legal system will be made an instrument of inequality of her majesty's subjects before the law and an instrument of subjugation of those deemed lesser subjects by unequal law systems.


So I say this is a Trojan Horse. Under the guise of legal freedom and self-determination, inequality before the law, and less legal freedom and self-determination are smuggled into the British legal system.
Too much respect for Islamic or other non-western sensitivities leads to a perpetuation of backwardness, of a lesser social status and to a lack of integration of minorities.

[Goofball]

Of course there is pressure. But it's a free society, they have the option to choose not to, and they know it.

Classic head in the sand attitude. If you had any idea what life was like for women in a traditional, conservative, muslim household, you would realize what crap that statement is.

I'm appalled by the responses of my fellow lefties in this thread. Allowing sharia judges to make binding enforcable rulings based on Islamic law is a huge step backward for women's rights. If this story had been identical except that it was about some kind of kangaroo Christian court making rulings, you'd all be screaming your bloody heads off.

So, instead of petty bickering about the validity of the news source, (which is simply a cowardly way of avoiding the true issue), why can't the left just step up to the plate and answer the true question here: Do you or don't you think it's a good idea to allow a bunch of bearded old men to make rulings in law based on a bunch of misogynistic ideas from centuries ago?

[InsaneApache]

Well said. And again we are arguing about what's so wrong with it, not quite so much really when taken as an isolated event. I wonder when muslims in England will be excused from paying taxes, it is against their religion after. 5 years or so.

I'm sorry mate but I reckon charlie might be gobbing off here. Why? Well to coin a phrase; it's just bollox.

Go have a lie down and put a damp tea-towel on your head.

There is a clear and present danger that the British legal system will be made an instrument of inequality of her majesty's subjects before the law and an instrument of subjugation of those deemed lesser subjects by unequal law systems.

I'm sorry Louis but I skimmed through your post, shame on me. This is indeed my concern in a nutshell. As you noted in another place, ethnicity trumps sexism. A shame on us all freethinkers.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Classic head in the sand attitude. If you had any idea what life was like for women in a traditional, conservative, muslim household, you would realize what crap that statement is.

I'm appalled by the responses of my fellow lefties in this thread. Allowing sharia judges to make binding enforcable rulings based on Islamic law is a huge step backward for women's rights. If this story had been identical except that it was about some kind of kangaroo Christian court making rulings, you'd all be screaming your bloody heads off.

So, instead of petty bickering about the validity of the news source, (which is simply a cowardly way of avoiding the true issue), why can't the left just step up to the plate and answer the true question here: Do you or don't you think it's a good idea to allow a bunch of bearded old men to make rulings in law based on a bunch of misogynistic ideas from centuries ago?

Glad to have you on board!

[Rhyfelwyr]

Make that two lefties on board. I don't see how women could possibly aviod pressure to settle disputes in a Sharia court, even when they will clearly be prejudiced against.

Islam isn't the demon terrorist religion the right makes it out to be, but it certaintly isn't the peaceful hippie religion the left portrays it as either. As always its somewhere in-between. But equality in the eyes of the law should never be compromised.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree. Equality is based loosely on Judeo-Christianity, but the bible itself does not contain "equality between the sexes" by modern standards. I would reject any governmental judicial system that contained inequality between the sexes as its hallmark.

[Big_John]

so we will focus on one aspect of sharia law (inequity amongst male and female parties)? so what is the problem here, that the act that allows sharia arbitration or the pre-existing social inequity in certain fundamentalist muslim relationships?

what would repealing this act (specifically for sharia) actually accomplish?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Oh, and EMFM, the Times and Sun are both Newscorp (or at least Murdoch owned). The Mail makes both of those look like a bunch of tree-hugging lefties and will happily reprint any story so long as it's about Muslims. Until it appears on the BBC I don't buy it.

What, you missed the Telegraph link?

[Fragony]

I'm sorry mate but I reckon charlie might be gobbing off here. Why? Well to coin a phrase; it's just bollox.

Go have a lie down and put a damp tea-towel on your head.

That was perfectly fine bait

[LittleGrizzly]

Im getting a strange sense of deja vu... i think i have been here in this discussion several times in the last few months....

Firstly can we try and getting over the big scary title and concentrate on the facts rather than some scary soundbites the Mail has been giving out... this will in actual fact affect very few people, and those it would affect would choose to be affected by it, your average daily mail reader wouldn't even now anythings changed (maybe apart from a few attention grabbing headlines...)

Secondly it seems a bit unfair that we for example allow jewish courts in the same manner so why not muslims ?

thirdly we would possibly be better off doing away with courts linked to religion and the like but if some religious figure can sort out some petty dispute between members of his religion without having to go through the expense of a regular court i can see the advantages...

Would it save taxpayers money or just the people in a dispute or both ?

because if its saving taxpayer money and frees up our judges ect. for more important work it is hard to see it as a bad thing...

[Goofball]

so we will focus on one aspect of sharia law (inequity amongst male and female parties)? so what is the problem here, that the act that allows sharia arbitration or the pre-existing social inequity in certain fundamentalist muslim relationships?

what would repealing this act (specifically for sharia) actually accomplish?

Sorry, but I'm afraid in this context we have to focus on that aspect of sharia law, as that is what these kangaroo courts are mainly being used for: civil matters involving disputes between males and females (i.e. divorce, inheritance, domestic abuse).

If you think that those are not areas in which women need some protection, then I don't really know where else to go with this discussion.

[Goofball]

Im getting a strange sense of deja vu... i think i have been here in this discussion several times in the last few months....

Firstly can we try and getting over the big scary title and concentrate on the facts rather than some scary soundbites the Mail has been giving out... this will in actual fact affect very few people, and those it would affect would choose to be affected by it, your average daily mail reader wouldn't even now anythings changed (maybe apart from a few attention grabbing headlines...)

That's what the lefties seem to be willfully ignoring here: muslim women being subjected to sharia "justice" have no choice in the matter, even though it might look like they are submitting to it voluntarily.

Secondly it seems a bit unfair that we for example allow jewish courts in the same manner so why not muslims ?

I think that should also be stopped. I wasn't aware that that was happening until now.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's what the lefties seem to be willfully ignoring here: muslim women being subjected to sharia "justice" have no choice in the matter, even though it might look like they are submitting to it voluntarily.




I think that should also be stopped. I wasn't aware that that was happening until now.

Those courts may have been functioning for 100 years in the U.K., but women couldn't vote 100 years ago. Maybe they were wrong in letting these courts operate for this long, maybe it's time for a change before it gets out of control?

[Big_John]

Sorry, but I'm afraid in this context we have to focus on that aspect of sharia law, as that is what these kangaroo courts are mainly being used for: civil matters involving disputes between males and females (i.e. divorce, inheritance, domestic abuse).

If you think that those are not areas in which women need some protection, then I don't really know where else to go with this discussion.

ok, so without these courts, justice will be restored?

[KarlXII]

ok, so without these courts, justice will be restored?

And what of the Jewish courts already in place?

[Goofball]

ok, so without these courts, justice will be restored?

Without these courts, muslim women would stand in from of British secular judges, where they are equal under the law.

[Big_John]

And what of the Jewish courts already in place?

jews are cool. they aren't muslim.

[Big_John]

Without these courts, muslim women would stand in from of British secular judges, where they are equal under the law.

ah, ok. so these women who are so cowed under by the oppressive males that dominate their society will be walking into the magistrates office to file for divorce, get their child support, sue for battery and rape, etc?