[Kosh]

I recently heard about a speech the Archbishop gave on February 7 about how the acceptance of Sharia law in Britain is "inevitable". Any thoughts about this issue or anything related?

[Rictor]

IIRC he wasn't endorsing Shariah, merely stating that it may be inevitable due to demographics and such. But I still fault him for it, because the proper response as a British citizen, much less a high representative of the Church of England, ought to be "not of my ****ing watch!".

edit: is this the same guy who debated Dawkins and constantly retreated his position until he basically ended up agreeing that maybe not every single religious person is necessarily evil, just deluded and ignorant? It was definitely a Brit and a CoE bigwig, but I don't remember if it was this guy specifically.

[karajorma]

His point was that Sharia courts are and should be an accepted part of the legal system for mediating disputes between two willing participants. He wasn't calling for a twin tier system or any of the other bollocks that idiots have been saying he is.

If two Muslims with a dispute decide that they'd rather get a Sharia court to mediate between them than a criminal prosecution how is it anyone else's business?

[BlackDove]

Man, **** the Archbishop of Canteberry.

Those are my thoughts. They aren't the most eloquent of thoughts, but they convey the point well I think.

[MP-Ryan]

If two Muslims with a dispute decide that they'd rather get a Sharia court to mediate between them than a criminal prosecution how is it anyone else's business?

Because it fails to address power inequalities in Muslim societies and the coercive effect of the family circle.

Example:  Muslim woman is raped by Muslim man.  Man wants to be in Sharia court.  Woman's family agrees.  Woman then has no say.

Common Law has its flaws in criminal matters, but it's a damn sight better than any other alternative.  Sharia law has no place in any society that cherishes liberty, equality, and justice.  I don't care whether that's their traditional culture or not - you move to a democratic society, you embrace the laws and founding principles of that society.

I'm all for cultural tolerance but when it comes to that unholy mess that is the Sharia law issue, a firm stand needs to be taken and upheld or we risk allowing the principles of justice to take a serious slide.  If the implementation of such a system can guarantee the rights of all parties to a fair and unbiased system, then fien - but thus far, we have seen no examples of such an implementation.

[karajorma]

Example:  Muslim woman is raped by Muslim man.  Man wants to be in Sharia court.  Woman's family agrees.  Woman then has no say.

Except that in that case we're not talking about both parties agreeing are we? Besides it's not as if the same case would go to criminal court under the current system anyway.

Man, **** the Archbishop of Canteberry.

That tends to be my position on the matter in most things actually.

[Colonol Dekker]

Just read this. Now i'm just giving an example of a common problem in SE london, imagine an argument escalated into serious assault, criminal damage and even death. Two muslim gents fighting over a muslim lady on a friday night. IC1's would do time. IC(3 or 4 i forget) would plead shariah law and get a more lenient reprimand surely?

[Colonol Dekker]

That should say "i've just read this" at the start, it kind of sounded like a word of command. Apologies for that; and the double post

[BlackDove]

That tends to be my position on the matter in most things actually.

Hmm, now that I recall it, it seems mine too.

I should probably enhance my vernacular.

[Windrunner]

I am a muslim my self and i think that sharia laws are a piece of crap. I mean come on, how the hell can someone follow laws that haven't changed for almost 2000 years. Women are totally defensless in a country that practices sharia laws.

Laws are made to be changed.

[Colonol Dekker]

True true. Obviously it's not my place to say how. My stance is if people wan't to live by a legal system which protects them, ie- american or british. Then they should embrace it fully. I'm not saying give up heritage or religion here. Just the legal / judicial system.

[Mika]

I found his predicition quite telling. And I'm getting angrier and angrier when I think about the implications.

If his prediction turns out to be true, this will be a dangerous precedent against any western court systems ("If they get it we can get it too!") and will result to the rule of mob in any uncivilized countries. I.e. this is a reason to get angry, and for a long time it is indeed a good reason. Either our law system applies for everyone or it applies for no-one. Unfortunately, in this case it is pretty much black and white.

As I have said before, when you apply for a nationality in a country, you should pretty much understand that it is you who has to adjust to current law system and culture, not the otherwise around. I cannot even fathom why should this kind of requests be even tolerated or published by media. Kick those people out or make them sit in the school until the lesson is learned. Preferably in in-your-face-style, like "This is the reason you are still in the stone age and this is the reason why we are now constructing towers made of ivory." For further grounds, one could say they are hindering the productivity of others and outsource them from the destination country - this tends to be happening on the corporate level, so why not on personal level?

Besides, law system change requests like these (I recall a poll conducted here which asked Muslims if they preferred Sharia law or the current law and the result was Sharia) make me feel that we have actually given refugee only to the criminals that had money to escape the country, leaving those who actually need the refugee places in the way of harm. Every single person who is actively pushing forward the Sharia law should be kicked out without any remorse. Of course, one has a right to opinion, but when it goes to actively supporting things which undermine the law system, it is pretty much clear what should be done. Also, part of me says that pushing for a law system within the current, democratically supported law system would be a treason at least.

Mika

[Colonol Dekker]

I've got to blame our [uk] government as they can be downright idiots. Ie give captain hook a 4x4 and a mansion. In short D'oh. . .

[karajorma]

Just read this. Now i'm just giving an example of a common problem in SE london, imagine an argument escalated into serious assault, criminal damage and even death. Two muslim gents fighting over a muslim lady on a friday night. IC1's would do time. IC(3 or 4 i forget) would plead shariah law and get a more lenient reprimand surely?

According to the Daily Mail, yes. According to what the Archbishop was on about, no. What people fail to consider is that Sharia law is already practised in Britain in exactly the way the Archbishop was on about. The British courts already allow religious courts to arbitrate in matters between willing participants of the same faith.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7238890.stm

Here. For those who don't actually understand what's being discussed.


And besides who the **** thinks Sharia law is more lenient?

[MP-Ryan]

According to the Daily Mail, yes. According to what the Archbishop was on about, no. What people fail to consider is that Sharia law is already practised in Britain in exactly the way the Archbishop was on about. The British courts already allow religious courts to arbitrate in matters between willing participants of the same faith.

What I, and perhaps others, am saying is that the so-called "willing" participants may not be at all.  Any system which simultaneously actively represses the freedoms of certain members (e.g. women) and tries to say it's a responsible even-handed forum is totally full of ****.

It's hard to tell who's willing when coercion plays such a large role in women's lives in a traditional/fundamentalist Muslim family group.  I think it is irresponsible for a larger society to allow arbitration or criminal matters to appear before a cultural body when freedom of choice, equality, and justice principles cannot be guaranteed.

I'm not against traditional justice measures entirely; I'm very much in favour of restorative justice initiatives pioneered by aboriginal groups in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.  I am firmly opposed to allowing Sharia law a foothold because of the basic status of women in cultures which practice Sharia law.  When and if they can transparently demonstrate that women are making the choices to use such a court of their own free will without the coercion of family members then I might reconsider my position.

[Rictor]

Now, I'm as much against the arbitrary imposition of state power as the next guy. Probably more. But when a sizeable minority begins to set up parallel institutions, they become a threat to the very existence of a state. A state is defined by, among others things, a uniform code of justice. One law to rule them all, one law to bind them. If that goes out thw window in a significant way, the role of the nation is subverted and is open to further erosion.

The reason it's OK for, say, Jews or Ba'hai and not for Muslims is not because Shariah is unfair towards women. But rather because Jews are a tiny enough minority in Britain that they can in no way challenge the role of the state, ever. Muslims are a large and growing demographic. Allowing for the use of a parallel legal system only encourages a separatist (anti-assimilationist) mindset. And when one day, a few decades from now, 25% of the population considers itself Muslim before British, or anything before British, you are going to have a very large problem.

[Kosh]

Please defend this Karajorma:

Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, the bishop of Rochester, warned on January 7 of the spread of "no-go" zones in England that non-Muslims dare not enter. As a result, Nazir-Ali has received death threats against himself and his family and requires protection.

The British authorities will take measures to protect bishops from the threat of violence, but they leave to their own devices thousands of Muslim women. According to a February 2008 report by the Center for Social Cohesion, Islamist groups and individuals frequently link ideas of honor with the welfare of the Muslim world. By using words such as Ird and Namus in a political context, they imply that by protecting the chastity of Muslim women, the security and collective honor of Islam and Muslim states and individuals can also be defended. This politicization of women's bodies helps create an environment where the abuse and control of women is tolerated.

Muslim communities, the report documents, terrorize women who refuse arranged marriages or otherwise break with social norms:

    Almost all refuges dealing with Asian women report on the existence of informal networks which exist to track down and punish - with death if necessary - women who are perceived as bringing shame on their family and community. In many cases, women fleeing domestic violence or forced marriages have been deliberately returned to their homes or betrayed to their families by policemen, councilors and civil servants of immigrant origin.

Muslim coercion against women extends to psychiatric hospitals, the Times of London's religion correspondent Ruth Gledhill reported on February 7 (cited in Rod Dreher's indispensable Crunchy Con blog, .) Glenhill quoted a women's rights advocate as follows:

    The men get tired of their wives. Or bored. Or maybe the wife objects to her daughter being forced into a marriage she doesn't want. Or maybe she starts wearing Western clothes. There can be many reasons. The women are sent for assessment to a hospital. The GP [general practitioner] referring them is Muslim. The psychiatrist assessing them is Muslim and male. I have sat in these assessments where the psychiatrist will not look the woman patient in the eye because she is a woman. Can you imagine! A psychiatrist refusing to look his patient in the eye? The woman speaks little or no English. She is sectioned (committed to a psychiatric ward). She is divorced. There are lots of these women in there, locked up in these hospitals. Why don't you people write about this?

That brings us back to the archbishop of Canterbury, who acknowledged the fact of coercion of women in his February 7 address, but insisted that because it belonged to "custom" rather than "religious law", he preferred to change the subject:

    Recognition of "supplementary jurisdiction" in some areas, especially family law, could have the effect of reinforcing in minority communities some of the most repressive or retrograde elements in them, with particularly serious consequences for the role and liberties of women. The "forced marriage" question is the one most often referred to here, and it is at the moment undoubtedly a very serious and scandalous one; but precisely because it has to do with custom and culture rather than directly binding enactments by religious authority, I shall refer to another issue.

But honestly, Rictor and MP Ryan do have a point, it is quite detrimental to society when you have a large immigrant minority unwilling to adapt to their new countries practices and customs. If they aren't willing to live in the 21st century I don't see what business they have in a first world nation. Something is wrong when a minority group can get away with making violent threats against anyone who questions their ways.

[karajorma]

Now, I'm as much against the arbitrary imposition of state power as the next guy. Probably more. But when a sizeable minority begins to set up parallel institutions, they become a threat to the very existence of a state. A state is defined by, among others things, a uniform code of justice. One law to rule them all, one law to bind them. If that goes out thw window in a significant way, the role of the nation is subverted and is open to further erosion.

The reason it's OK for, say, Jews or Ba'hai and not for Muslims is not because Shariah is unfair towards women. But rather because Jews are a tiny enough minority in Britain that they can in no way challenge the role of the state, ever. Muslims are a large and growing demographic. Allowing for the use of a parallel legal system only encourages a separatist (anti-assimilationist) mindset. And when one day, a few decades from now, 25% of the population considers itself Muslim before British, or anything before British, you are going to have a very large problem.

So you believe that the Mexican women who had their voting rights removed had to rise up and declare their own suffrage but Muslim women don't? So you believe in the principle of allowing populations to keep their own culture only when it suits the majority?

What makes me laugh is that I doubt anyone actually read the link I posted.

[WMCoolmon]

My thought on the article:

In principle, laws should be understanding enough and religionless enough that disputes can be settled regardless of the person's religion, or even local culture. I'm not talking 'understanding' in a touchy-feely way, but more that the law acknowledges that not everyone thinks the same way or even follows the same principles.

But the point of the law is to be a means of binding people together (yes, insert LOTR quote here) and making it OK to go to another court 'if both parties agree' that follows different laws doesn't seem right at all. If the daughter of one Muslim family chooses to turn her back on Islam and is killed by another Muslim, does that mean that the trial can take place in an Islamic court simply because both parties agree? Would it be right or fair to resolve disputes in a different way based solely on someone's religion?

IMHO, it is a big can of worms that is best left closed. If the laws are unjust enough that it's considered appropriate to set up another independent and state-endorsed judicial branch, then I think that it's probably worth looking into changing the laws that caused the situation to arise in the first place.

Of course that may be a little more Libertarian than what most people actually want.

[karajorma]

Here we go again. Yet another person who thinks this is about a two tier system of justice.


I give up.