The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Sharia courts in the UK
osietra
__BANNED USERS regular
__BANNED USERS regular
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece
I'm currently midway through gutting a duck for supper, so please don't think this is just me posting a shitty link. I have duck blood on my hands, so don't really want to mess up my keyboard.
Its bad I guess. Does the US have a comparable thing?
I'm currently midway through gutting a duck for supper, so please don't think this is just me posting a shitty link. I have duck blood on my hands, so don't really want to mess up my keyboard.
Its bad I guess. Does the US have a comparable thing?
osietra on
0
Posts
Yeah, the article title is misleading. These aren't courts at all, they're arbitration that is being run according to religious law. They're only applicable when both parties agree to accept the rulings, and they can only be involved in civil, not criminal cases.
Basically, on a personal level I think this is a horrible idea, but if all the parties are involved are in agreement it's no business of mine how they settle their personal affairs. Arbitration in general is already completely arbitrary and idiotic, this is just an extension of that.
I don't agree with the basic concept of arbitration tribunals. It's fair too easy to envisage a scenario in which a person would really rather use the normal legal system, but is pressured into accepting a tribunal.
Arbitration services facilitate all sorts of disputes across the globe, including the UK and the US already. Both parties have to agree in advance to allow a third-party arbitrator to intervene in the instance of a dispute so if people want to have a religious committee make their decisions for them, that's their call. It goes on all the time in business, normally with professional third party arbitrators being used. My freelance contract has an arbitration clause on it. If I wanted to, I guess I could specify that a Sharia court will be the arbitrators. That'd make people think twice about bailing on my fees.
Pretty much, this is bad news for muslim women who are almost certainly going to end up getting fucked over by this ruling.
Make that have
Would this result in precedents needing to be considered by real law instead of candy law here. Because I think only that would make me angrier.
If the matter was resolved, then why wouldn't the complaints be withdrawn?
I work in the public defender's office and that sentence isn't all that different from the ones I see from normal courts on some domestic violence cases.
This.
It's no wonder Europe has problems integrating their immigrant populations when they allow them to live in separate spheres, even butchering the law itself, theoretically one of the most powerful common denominators of a society, into two separate pieces.
I get that since WWII they're all incredibly wary of cultural insensitivity but failing to assimilate immigrant populations doesn't help anybody, least of all immigrants themselves
All in all I don't understand why the British government would give in on something like this, have they no faith in their own courts?
Just like the US does not have an official language, really. Everyone is supposed to speak English, but no official effort is made to make sure that everyone living in your country gets to learn English.
Ontario faced this problem a few years ago; there was already religious arbitration by/for Jews and Catholics, and Muslims tried to use the same legal loophole to get Sharia courts. The provincial government ended up changing the law and banning all religious arbitrations, rather than allowing that to happen. Overall, a necessary sacrifice to keep Sharia out of Canadian law.
A good description of the objection to religious arbitration in general, from back then: "Multiculturalism was eroding common values. The line separating church and state was being erased. Theocracy was being grafted onto Canada."
In one hundred percent of cases? I mean yeah maybe they were being as rigorous as a normal criminal judge would be and holding the threat posed to the women as paramount whilst making this judgement, but do you really think that likely? Especially in a community so well known for its misogynistic attitudes?
And no, you could not do this in America, because Congress shall make no law respecting any establishment of religion. Statutorily recognizing a religious court as having authority to rule on a case, civil or criminal, would definitely be establishing a religious institution.
I think you're mixing up (legally binding) arbitration and (non-binding) mediation, there, chief.
Six. Six cases.
Laughable, because unfortunately most of the sad situations I encounter include a woman who is not holding the threat posed to her as paramount.
What exactly do you think the courts are able to do if the woman is unwilling to divorce her husband?
If the woman wants to remain married then she is probably not looking to:
a) have a protective order instituted that prevents her husband from coming within 100 fit of herself or her home.
b) have her husband sent to jail for a few months.
c) have a fine imposed.
And I just want to point out that one does not need to live in a muslim ghetto to find women who are unwilling to divorce husbands who push them, or threaten them or hit them.
I'm not a lawyer, so I guess I could be wrong.
Nope.
Everyone goes through the same judiciary system in the US.
Except for the rich, white guys.
Civil matters can be submitted to binding arbitration.
I'm not sure whether arbitrators need to have any qualifications.
This seems to me to be the best way to go.
See also: the TV court shows. They pay each participant an appearance fee and broadcast their case. They're a lot more open now, sometimes the judge even openly states that a participant is being awarded money out of the show's general fund or the other person's appearance money.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
what?
this isn't racial prejudice, it's prejudice against an archaic and deeply sexist set of laws.
This is unacceptable in a modern nation, regardless of your religion. I'm all for religion freedoms, but religious law cannot supercede the law of the land anywhere in the world.
Again, this is almost certainly happening in any country, the US and Canada included, that allows for binding arbitration.
There's nothing distinctly european about this, nor anything specific to Islam, since there are Jewish and Christian and many other arbitration courts.
Or should muslims simply be denied a legal mechanism every other group has the freedom to use?
This is not too dissimilar - two parties agree to proceed based on an agreed set of rules. This is not a new court, nor a government endorsement of those rules.
That doesn't make it all well and good of course, because there is the issue of consent and pressure on women in a culture where they are not expected to be assertive. Plus some (or a lot) of the rules are patently unfair to them.
Then again, if you have genuine consent to the application of these rules - what are you going to do? Save people from themselves? It might feel good to declare "no to Sharia arbitration, ever!" but what impact will that have? Scholars and Imams in the community will still be free to hand out recommendations and judgments based on Sharia law (just like you are still free to settle a matter with rock-paper-scissors or some other rule, regardless of what the common law or statute might have to say about who gets to sit in the front seat).
In a way, arbitration might be an improvement because it moves these cases from the background to a quasi-judicial setting. Parties can have some faith in enforcement, and parties which have not consented can challenge the rulings (I can't imagine that there's not much recourse in an underground judgment).
Where there are Muslim communities there are people settling disputes with Sharia law. It's really quite a civil method of settling grievances and your whiplash assumption that it's archaic and inherently misogynistic belies your ignorance. The most common disputes are typically ones of business. In that regard it's no different from arbitration through any other professional arbitration service. In the cases of domestic dispute I'm sure if the woman was free-willed enough to take the abuse to a proper court after the Sharia court failed her she wouldn't be denied, if for no other reason that reporting it to the police would make it a criminal matter. Of course, there are bound to be cases where the woman wouldn't feel capable of doing that, but that's going to be the case with or without Sharia courts and is an entire separate issue. If anything, the presence of Sharia courts may make it more likely that she would at least seek justice there and if these are government sanctioned Sharia courts in the UK, you can bet they're going to have a close eye kept on them to ensure their power isn't abused. At least, not any more than the power of the regular courts.
So uh, why'd the men recieve twice what the women did if not for misogynistic reasons? or for that matter if it's so equal why do men and women have different rights under sharia law? How about its treatments of homosexuals? I mean those things strike me as pretty disgustingly barbaric but apparently that's just my racism showing?
The Rabbinical courts in New York City have been around for ever.
The Beth Din of America handles many divorce cases according to rabbinical law as well, which requires the woman obtain permission from the man to divorce him.
There are many different christian arbitration groups around.
The American Indian Tribal courts go much further and have jurisdiction over criminal matters in matters wholly involving tribe members.
Hell, The People's Court/Judge Judy/etc are all nothing more than televised Binding Arbitration with over-the-top theatrics.
There's no doubt that Islamic groups are already settling disputes in front of local religious leaders, but since there would be such a knee-jerk outcry if these were to operate in the same manner as other legal arbitration groups, it's all very hush-hush and behind closed doors. Letting it stay that way is arguably much more dangerous to those pressured in to such proceedings.
And that's ignoring the fact that any two people are already free to agree on an arbitrator of their choice, who could base his decision on anything at all, including sharia law, without it being advertised as a "sharia court".
You have some reading/watching to do.
I'd start with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law#Modern_Islamic_law
Or, you know, watch the news some time.
There are quite a few things commonly referred to as part of the Sharia law that are in direct violation with basic human rights and the basic assumption that every human is born equal.