[Kosh]

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


I give up.

While it may not be that way now, it could potentially evolve into that. Even so, Sharia for civil matters in Britain is just........wrong.

[WMCoolmon]

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


I give up.

Oh, I see. I was unaware that the number of tiers in a law system was more important than its morality or fairness.

[karajorma]

Your entire comment about a murder victim was a strawman. And not the first such one on this thread. To do that would be to have a two tier, immoral unfair system. It's not at all what the archbishop was on about.

But some people hear the words Sharia and immediately assume he's saying that Muslims in the UK should be able to behead people.

It's actually pretty sad that even on a board which is supposed to be devoted reasoned discussion of a subject that people can't be bothered to actually figure out what the man was saying before saying he's wrong to say it.

[TrashMan]

I can't believe you're surprised.
Happens on the time, everywhere.

[Mr. Vega]

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.

Which is why Texas has to drop these stupid anti-immigrant policies that are just forcibly isolating mexican immigrants from the rest of the population. Assimilation must take priority above everything else.

[Mr. Vega]

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.

He simply thinks other countries shouldn't interfere with what isn't happening on their soil. This, on the other hand, is quite different, cause it's happening inside Britain.

[Kosh]

Assimilation must take priority above everything else

We are the Borg Americans. You will be assimilated. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service ours. Resistance is futile.



But seriously what if immigrants in, say Saudi Arabia, demand that they use English common law instead settle disputes? Do you really think the muslim majority would stand for it? 

[Mr. Vega]

Assimilation must take priority above everything else

We are the Borg Americans. You will be assimilated. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service ours. Resistance is futile.

Your point being?

But seriously what if immigrants in, say Saudi Arabia, demand that they use English common law instead settle disputes? Do you really think the muslim majority would stand for it?

Yeah, this image of British docility in my head keeps getting stronger and stronger.

[karajorma]

But seriously what if immigrants in, say Saudi Arabia, demand that they use English common law instead settle disputes? Do you really think the muslim majority would stand for it?

They already do. It's called an out of court settlement.

That's all that is being talked about here. Yet people keep acting like it's referring to criminal cases.


Again it's all a complete misunderstanding of the point. The correct analogy is would immigrants in Saudi Arabia put up with being told that they couldn't settle disputes amongst themselves and HAD to sue civilly in the Saudi courts?

[IPAndrews]

God forbid anyone should move over to our country and actually take make an effort to take onboard our beliefs, our values, and integrate into our society.

[karajorma]

There's a difference between integration and insisting that anyone that moves to the UK has give up their entire culture and religion as a result.

And that's before we get to the fact that the majority of people involved were born here What are you going to do? Ape the BNP's suggestion that we should send them back where they came from?

[Mika]

The British courts already allow religious courts to arbitrate in matters between willing participants of the same faith.

I have difficulties in believing my eyes. Is this really true?

Most of the people have no trouble understanding the article. I think the discussion here is about what this out-of-court settlement system itself says it is or is supposed to be and what it actually is - i.e. the thing the well-known and respected tabloid magazine Daily Mail started. For some reason people don't believe it would be a good idea and the magazine is fishing of this fear or whatever feeling it is. Instead of calling people short-sighted or racistic, it would be a good idea to find out why Western people don't tolerate Muslim sense of court, yes no? And why, apparently, the Muslim world tolerates Western out-of-court settlements inside their countries? Oh, I don't believe racism is the answer here - I believe this is more related to the everyday transactions between common people and what they have experienced there.

Let the people who know something about this speak it out now.

Mika

[IceFire]

I'm inclined to believe that a country should be ruled under a single rule of law and thats how it works when you come here.  Doesn't matter who you are...there are reasonably sufficient ways of modifying and changing the current laws of the land to adapt to the times that there is absolutely no need to have things change to a two tier system or a slightly more informal two parties agree kind of system.

It does seem like Muslims are in the news allot locally and internationally and this seems to be happening allot in the western world be it France or the US or Canada or elsewhere.  A few weeks back a teenage girl living in Toronto was killed by her father for not wearing a headscarf to school...at least thats how the story has been framed...probably more to the story but its definitely been framed as a Muslim issue.  It makes even the most tolerant Canadians a bit wary...and I imagine some of the same questions and emotions are running through people in the UK as well.

[Kosh]

They already do. It's called an out of court settlement.

But what if they want a seperate civil court that uses English Common Law?

[Rictor]

There's a difference between integration and insisting that anyone that moves to the UK has give up their entire culture and religion as a result.

And that's before we get to the fact that the majority of people involved were born here What are you going to do? Ape the BNP's suggestion that we should send them back where they came from?

OK, let's say this is merely on the level of an out-of-court settlement. Still, if a significant part of the population does not trust the legal system enough to settle disputes using it, does that not point to a segregationist mentality? Doesn't their preference for alternate methods de-legitimize the very concept of national law? If everyone else lives under set of rules, and a community of people quite politely, quite consensually set up institutions to replace them, is that not a problem?

This isn't a few Mennonites with funny hats we're talking about. It's 5-20% of almost every major EU country. Probably 15-30% in two decades.

[achtung]

Europe is being overrun. 

[MP-Ryan]

It's actually pretty sad that even on a board which is supposed to be devoted reasoned discussion of a subject that people can't be bothered to actually figure out what the man was saying before saying he's wrong to say it.

I know exactly what he's driving at, and I'm still saying that he, and others who are willing to concede the use of Sharia law for private settlements between "willing participants" are missing out on the fact that Muslim fundamentalists most likely to use such a system will not reat any female parties involved fairly.

This was a huge issue in Ontario within the past two years, and after some serious research and immense public backlash the Ontario Provincial government shoved through a bill that totally and absolutely quashed any notion of the use of religious legal institutions for that very reason - the problem of equality in a culture in which gender equality is even worse than your typical Western country.

Legal settlements should not, under any circumstances, have a basis in anything but secular law.  To allow otherwise is to create opportunities for silent miscarriages of justice among a population in which plenty already do occur due to the silence of victims and their families.

I brought up restorative justice initiatives earlier (as did the Archbishop in his remarks) and it should be noted that they follow secular principles and are derived from a society in which women were not treated as "lower" than men.  Restorative justice is far different from the idea of Sharia law (properly implemented restorative justice results in a two-tier system, for one), and the fact that the Archbishop would even begin to compare the two makes it quite evident that he has not done his homework.

Religion has no place in the legal system under any circumstances, which is also why we need to get to work excising the various leftovers of religious moral codes from criminal law, which still has a great deal of meddlesome "save the sinner" legislation that has no place as a criminal statute.

[WMCoolmon]

Your entire comment about a murder victim was a strawman. And not the first such one on this thread. To do that would be to have a two tier, immoral unfair system. It's not at all what the archbishop was on about.

But some people hear the words Sharia and immediately assume he's saying that Muslims in the UK should be able to behead people.

It's actually pretty sad that even on a board which is supposed to be devoted reasoned discussion of a subject that people can't be bothered to actually figure out what the man was saying before saying he's wrong to say it.

Don't try to tell me what my comment was or wasn't when you clearly don't have the foggiest of where I'm coming from. (Either that, or you're intentionally misunderstanding me... )

I did read the news article you posted, and I saw very little that was relevant to the current discussion; the article did not discuss what would end up being changed at all.

For that matter, I never stated that he was wrong to say it. All I did was express the views that I felt were pertinent. I never passed judgments on the statements or on the proposed changes, I simply stated what I agreed with and what I didn't agree with, in extremely generalized terms.

If you expect a reasoned discussion on the subject, you need to actually try to understand what people are saying, rather than jump to conclusions and stuff words in people's mouths. There is no way to have a reasonable discussion when I say that exploiting legal loopholes to get a lighter penalty for murder is wrong, and you respond by acting as if I'm saying that freedom of speech needs to be oppressed.

I don't have any clue what, exactly, the archbishop was suggesting would be added beyond "Civil codes", and I don't think anybody in this thread knows anything any more concrete than that. Hell I doubt he himself knows exactly what that would mean; it sounds more like an off-the-cuff opinion based on his knowledge and research, rather than a coherent plan of action to integrate Sharia civil codes into British legal infrastructure. So I don't see why you're going out of your way to accuse people of being just short of ignorant bigots for stating their general opinion on the subject, when nobody at all is qualified to discuss the specifics.

Given the liberal leaning of this board, I'd imagine that most people wouldn't be opposed to third-party arbitration for disputes that really only involved two people. But I think you'll find that there are a lot of 'private' disputes whose resolution would have an impact on non-Muslims, but who wouldn't technically be part of the case. If a business or a business owner is involved, what say do his customers get? If a man takes his wife to court for infidelity, does the lover get any say? What if Sharia civil code demands that the lover suffer some penalty? What if the religious civil code requires a punishment that's in violate of British law? What if someone is essentially forcced into attending the court based on social pressure? What if someone is treated unfairly because the system does not have the same built-in protections against abuse as the British judicial system (What those safeguards might be, I don't know).

What if the case involves a minor?

The key problem is that the reason behind setting the new laws into motion is that they would conflict with the legal system today. If that's true, you've basically got the state contradicting itself on the basis of religion - which doesn't seem fair at all. (Who gets to use the courts? Why do Muslims get their own court but not anyone else? Etc etc.)

Rewrite 'court' with 'third-party arbitration' if you see it as more appropriate. But so long as it operates due to a consistent set of rules, and acts like a court, and has the same authority as a (low-level) court, I don't see how you can claim that it's radically different from, well, what it is. For marital issues, it does make some sense, or at least it would if the situation is like here in the States - where the church has a strong influence over the institution of marriage (Maybe too strong - but that's another discussion entirely).

[karajorma]

The British courts already allow religious courts to arbitrate in matters between willing participants of the same faith.

I have difficulties in believing my eyes. Is this really true?

Yes it does, So do the Canadian courts to almost exactly the same degree and it wouldn't surprise me given the high Jewish population if it exists in the US. That's why I find this entire debate so funny. It's people debating that the Archbishop was wrong to say that something shouldn't be brought in that already exists.


Now if you want to tell me that we should only have one law I want to hear people saying that Beth Din courts should be closed down too. Otherwise it's simply picking on Muslims.

[SadisticSid]

Yes, religious institutions may arbitrate. It's not at all the same thing as pronouncing judgement on or sentencing anyone. I agree that what Williams was suggesting was not that Shariah law may be substituted for British law... but the whole thing certainly came out that way to thuneducated masses. Regardless of his intent, he can now add this poorly worded spittle to his record, whose past deeds include:

From http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/02/rowan-williams.html:

In 2005, he attacked the internet and web-based media for playing host to free discussion of views close to, as he put it, "unpoliced conversation". Oh no! Unpoliced!
In 2003, he admitted having discriminated against Freemasons and declared that their beliefs were incompatible with Christianity (he later apologised).
In 2002, he wrote that “Every transaction in the developed economies of the West can be interpreted as an act of aggression against the economic losers in the worldwide game”.
In the same book, he wrote in reference to removing the Taliban that acting in defence of others was contrary to Jesus' call to "turn the other cheek" and argued that the 9/11 hijackers lacked the freedom we have to "consider whether or not we turn to violence".

Whatever his intentions may have been, pontificating on even the most minimal acceptance or integration of Shariah, an openly barbaric system of practices if not law, especially by someone so high up the ecclesiastical tree, is always going to provoke this kind of response in a country whose historic system of law is so diametrically opposed.