Sharia Law in the UK?

[bridgy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7233335.stm



Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks the UK should allow the adoption of Sharia Law alongside UK law, in order to reduce the alienation of Muslims. From the above article:

Quote:

Dr Williams said Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

This has sparked a massive response from the British media, and public and political reaction appears to be almost universally negative - with the exception of muslim spokesmen on news programmes!

The principles involved remind me of the row about laws on equality for homosexuals last year sparked by Catholics wanting exemption from anti discrimination laws on the basis of their religious faith - and no doubt part of the archbishop's agenda is for Christians to be able to opt out of laws they don't like too.

Quote:

Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".

Well allowing different religions to opt out of UK law for their own versions is far more dangerous and likely to cause or increase friction and mistrust between communities in my opinion.

Quote:

Dr Williams added: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."

No, that's exactly what we want! UK law is democratic. What he's talking about is democracy standing up against minority religious doctrine - thankfully it seems most British people still think this is a good idea!

Your thoughts?

[Dr Adequate]

I think I shall start a new religion in which bank robbery is considered a sacrament.

Believers will tithe directly to me as Supreme MegaPope of the First Church Of Kleptomania.

[mrbaracuda]

My thoughts are: Britland is going down the gutter day by day and I'm saddened to see this. I don't see how this will not further the [self imposed?!] alienation.

You know, some people are actually thinking about something like civil war will erupt at some point. And, I don't know. I don't like civil war in my EU.

[Madalch]

Wasn't that an album by some punk band?

[Rolfe]

It's possible he meant no more than that arrangements should be made to accommodate Moslem views on acceptable banking practices, or divorce law. But if so, he chose an absolutely bizarre form of words.

We already have far too much legal concession to religious doctrine in the allowing of animal slaughter methods which would get a non-Jew or non-Moslem jailed for "causing unnecessary suffering". If we go further down that road, where will we be? Corporal punishment for theft?

Rolfe.

[JoeEllison]

I just heard about this on NPR. There didn't seem to be anything especially crazy or wrong-headed about it. You'll note the utter lack of uproar about similar allowances made for the Jewish community, and the complete lack of devastation to the UKian way of life.

[UserGoogol]

I have no problem per se with instituting Sharia if it merely exists as a sort of glorified* arbitration court. The example of "Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court" seems fairly reasonable. The problem is merely if Sharia law can mix itself up with people who don't want to be ruled by Sharia, since then people's rights are quite likely to be infringed. Which could in fact be rather common, since a lot of actions that are legally regulated have actions which go beyond the direct parties in the legal case. But in principle, the idea of letting people pick and choose what sort of law they want to be governed by seems like an entirely just idea.

*Although in so far as it is "glorified," it should not be glorified in such a way as to promote or disparage Islam, since that would violate separation of church and state. And if other groups of people want to live by their own laws, they should be equally free to.

[ddt]

The article quotes Culture Secretary Andy Burnham:

Quote:

"You cannot run two systems of law alongside each other," he said, adding this would be "chaos".

It's interesting to note that some 100-150 years ago, the Ottoman Empire actually did this - different laws for Muslims, Jews and Christians. Especially on the part of the Christians it was pressured to do this by the then superpowers - Britain and France. How times can change.

I think it's principally wrong to have different laws for different people. The law is there for everyone, and the law should be equal for everyone.

As to what parts of law the Archbishop thinks there should be differences:

Quote:

For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

Financial matters? Contract law? So, when I have a dispute with my Turkish butcher about the meat he sells me, should I go to a normal court or a Sharia court? This is absolutely ridiculous. Commerce thrives on clear-cut trading rules.

Marital disputes? Family law? He sees the problem the wrong way around. British law now has too much religiosity in family law. The fact that a church marriage is recognized by the state is ridiculous. Britain here has missed the great civilization that is called Napoleonic code, which insists on a secular marriage in front of the (local) government - and if you like to have a church marriage, that's your choice, but that's null and void for the (secular) law.

Besides the principled issue, different laws for different people do not serve for more integration of the various groups.

Quote:

Under English law, people may devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.

Muslim Sharia courts and the Orthodox Jewish courts which already exist in the UK come into this category.

Yes, so what? As long as it's not against criminal code, you may write anything in a contract you like. That's up to both parties of the contract.

Quote:

He [Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Ramadhan Foundation] added: "Sharia law for civil matters is something which has been introduced in some western countries with much success.

Which ones???

Originally Posted by mrbaracuda

My thoughts are: Britland is going down the gutter day by day and I'm saddened to see this. I don't see how this will not further the [self imposed?!] alienation.

You know, some people are actually thinking about something like civil war will erupt at some point. And, I don't know. I don't like civil war in my EU.

Having followed the antics of Mrs. T. with respect to the EU, and the ever lasting big discussions in Britain about its EU membership, I have regularly thought it would be best to kick them out.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by UserGoogol

I have no problem per se with instituting Sharia if it merely exists as a sort of glorified* arbitration court. The example of "Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court" seems fairly reasonable.

In the same sense as that, when I buy an internet domain-name, I agree to the ICANN arbitration procedures - I agree.

Originally Posted by UserGoogol

The problem is merely if Sharia law can mix itself up with people who don't want to be ruled by Sharia, since then people's rights are quite likely to be infringed. Which could in fact be rather common, since a lot of actions that are legally regulated have actions which go beyond the direct parties in the legal case.

For instance, the height of alimony can tie in with what Social Security has to pay the receiver of the alimony to let her/him have a minimum income. Family law should clearly spell out which parts of the law can not be trumped by what people themselves write into their contracts, i.c., prenups, wills, etc.

The same thing holds for labour laws and real estate lease laws - at least over here, they are heavily regulated with lots of rules that cannot be trumped by the contracts people write.

Originally Posted by UserGoogol

But in principle, the idea of letting people pick and choose what sort of law they want to be governed by seems like an entirely just idea.

Then they just have to spell it out in their contract, plain and simple.

[geni]

Originally Posted by ddt

Financial matters? Contract law? So, when I have a dispute with my Turkish butcher about the meat he sells me, should I go to a normal court or a Sharia court? This is absolutely ridiculous. Commerce thrives on clear-cut trading rules.

As long as you both agree either would be an option.

Quote:

Marital disputes? Family law? He sees the problem the wrong way around. British law now has too much religiosity in family law. The fact that a church marriage is recognized by the state is ridiculous.

Not really. Original common law marrage was mostly based on public statements. The idea of documenting stuff is purely a church idea and a church marrage is fairly public.

Quote:

Britain here has missed the great civilization that is called Napoleonic code,

There are limits to how far the law should try and protect people from themselves. Napoleonic code based systems tend to go beyond that point.

Quote:

which insists on a secular marriage in front of the (local) government - and if you like to have a church marriage, that's your choice, but that's null and void for the (secular) law.

The local goverment has better things to do. As long as the marrage is properly documented why is it any of the state's business as to who performs it?

Quote:

Yes, so what? As long as it's not against criminal code, you may write anything in a contract you like. That's up to both parties of the contract.

There are exceptions to that even under common law. There are rather more exceptions under the Napoleonic code.

Quote:

Having followed the antics of Mrs. T. with respect to the EU, and the ever lasting big discussions in Britain about its EU membership, I have regularly thought it would be best to kick them out.

The lack of anything to balance the franco-german axis would likey cause problems.

[Morrigan]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

I just heard about this on NPR. There didn't seem to be anything especially crazy or wrong-headed about it. You'll note the utter lack of uproar about similar allowances made for the Jewish community, and the complete lack of devastation to the UKian way of life.

Jews aren't as scary, though.

[pomeroo]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

I just heard about this on NPR. There didn't seem to be anything especially crazy or wrong-headed about it. You'll note the utter lack of uproar about similar allowances made for the Jewish community, and the complete lack of devastation to the UKian way of life.

If Western civilization falls, the cause will not be Islamofascist barbarians who demand that technologically-advanced societies be governed by Shar'ia: the cause will be muddle-headed liberals who see nothing wrong with the demand.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

I think I shall start a new religion in which bank robbery is considered a sacrament.

Believers will tithe directly to me as Supreme MegaPope of the First Church Of Kleptomania.

The proposed change is only about civil matters, not criminal.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by pomeroo

If Western civilization falls, the cause will not be Islamofascist barbarians who demand that technologically-advanced societies be governed by Shar'ia: the cause will be muddle-headed liberals who see nothing wrong with the demand.

If that was what they were after, I would agree.

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by pomeroo

If Western civilization falls, the cause will not be Islamofascist barbarians who demand that technologically-advanced societies be governed by Shar'ia: the cause will be muddle-headed liberals who see nothing wrong with the demand.

It is a good thing that everything you posted only exists in your paranoid delusions, isn't it? If reality were half as scary as your weird little fantasies, we might actually have something to worry about!

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

The proposed change is only about civil matters, not criminal.

Basically, all they are talking about is binding arbitration, isn't it?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

similar allowances made for the Jewish community

Such as...?

[pomeroo]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

It is a good thing that everything you posted only exists in your paranoid delusions, isn't it? If reality were half as scary as your weird little fantasies, we might actually have something to worry about!

Yeah, as always, you stand on firm ground. When will you be informing the families of the three thousand victims of the jihadists that their loved ones are still alive? They will be deliriously happy to know that the incident was merely the figment of a paranoid conservative's imagination.

Nah, we don't actually have something to worry about. Reality is nothing that can't be handled by telling more lies about George Bush.

[quixotecoyote]

allowances for binding arbitration between consenting parties based on religious rules....

fanatic suicide bombers killing thousands...

Do you really not see the difference?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

allowances for binding arbitration between consenting parties based on religious rules....

And how do you know both parties are really consenting, as opposed to bullied into it, particularly women?

Frankly, I don't think there should be the "choice".

And I'd really like to see examples about how this is allegedly also done for Orthodox Jews.

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

allowances for binding arbitration between consenting parties based on religious rules....

fanatic suicide bombers killing thousands...

Do you really not see the difference?

It all looks the same to some people... bigotry is a nasty goddamned thing, isn't it?

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Such as...?

Some Jewish communities observe their own relgigious legal institutions/laws, and are permitted to use these for some civil, legal matters. I have no more problem with that than this, if that is what those people want.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by WildCat

And how do you know both parties are really consenting, as opposed to bullied into it, particularly women?

Bullying someone into agreeing to a legally binding contract is against the criminal law (IANAL). If that were to happen, I would expect those women to go to the criminal system.

[pomeroo]

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

It all looks the same to some people... bigotry is a nasty goddamned thing, isn't it?

Yup, bigots are goddamned nasty people. Imagine your reaction to some Bible-thumper's proposal for special civil codes applicable to evangelical Christians.

Hypocrite.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by pomeroo

Yup, bigots are goddamned nasty people. Imagine your reaction to some Bible-thumper's proposal for special civil codes applicable to evangelical Christians.

Hypocrite.

If they do that for everyone, which they do, it's a problem. If they decide they don't want gays getting married, and only apply that law to themselves, that's fine by me. If you're a gay evengelical, then it's up to you to sort out what you think should happen.

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by WildCat

And how do you know both parties are really consenting, as opposed to bullied into it, particularly women?

Frankly, I don't think there should be the "choice".

I hedge towards being against it for that reason, but that's a world apart from the insanity pomeroo was trying to pawn off.

I'm ambivalent because if UK law is anyting like US law, you can already do a pretty decent imitation contractually, through pre-nuptials, and the like. This doesn't seem like it would do much more than simplify the process.

Plus, saying, "You aren't really a consenting adult, you just say you are, therefore we can protectively legislate regarding you" is problematic on several levels.

[mrbaracuda]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

It's possible he meant no more than that arrangements should be made to accommodate Moslem[ view]s

You can stop there I think.

[portlandatheist]

I'm sure there are some pseudo-liberals out there that would embrace abandoning the notion of universal human rights in favor of cultural relativism where the principles of equal rights and self determination would only apply to the "west" and we should allow room for Muslims to practice misogyny, racism, anti homosexual philosophy, female genital mutilation, fascism, etc. and that "we" should be accommodating to such beliefs.
Fortunately, most liberals are much wiser than embracing such a backwards non liberal philosophy as Sharia law.

I don't understand the notion of "gee, it would be just terrible for 'us' to discriminate against gays but I have no problem if 'they' want to discriminate against gays" In fact, the whole notion of "us" and "them" is poisonous politics. People living in the same land and same government need to live under the same rules, Muslim, Christians, and atheists alike. Identity politics based on religion or race is a recipe for disaster. Same rules for everybody, deal with it.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

...snip...

I'm ambivalent because if UK law is anyting like US law, you can already do a pretty decent imitation contractually, through pre-nuptials, and the like. This doesn't seem like it would do much more than simplify the process.

Plus, saying, "You aren't really a consenting adult, you just say you are, therefore we can protectively legislate regarding you" is problematic on several levels.

It is very common these days in UK contracts to have a clause regarding what will happen if there is a contractual dispute (usually something like accepting arbitration by a QC) and most of the time the courts will accept that this is binding on the parties involved. The reason why I say "most of the time" is that there is a little niggle in this and that is that the law as it currently stands means that such arbitration does not have to be in accordance with UK law; so you can in fact use such a clause to try and circumvent statutory rights, apply penalties that would not be legal in UK law and so on. However some such clauses have been successfully challenged in a court on the grounds that they are not in accordance with UK laws and remove rights we are "guaranteed".

Just as a FYI - prenuptial agreements are not legally binding contracts over here since marriage and divorce are dictated by law - although such agreements may be considered by a court if the divorce ever gets to the court stage.

____________

More general points - first of all I am not in one way surprised by Canterbury's remarks (after all to him religion should determine what society is meant to be), what I am surprised about is that he is wanting to promote a non-Anglican faith, rather remiss of him!

By the way has any one got any up-to-date polls of how many British people who are Muslim would want Sharia law to apply to them?

Regarding other religious groups already having their own "law", probably the best known in the UK would be the Jewish "Beth Din", this is the Jewish equivalent of a Sharia based court and exists because many Jews do not believe that secular courts have authority over them and it is a religious obligation and in England at least (don't know about NI and the other legal systems) if both parties agree to be bound by such a court the result is legally binding. (Interestingly last year there was a very good Radio 4 programme that discussed the ramifications of such a court and the problems it caused for women when their husbands would not allow(!) a divorce which is apparently a requirement.)

Personally I think we should not be looking to extend religion in our legal system but it is already in place in some areas and has been for a long time so I do think there is more than a whiff of anti-Muslim in much of what is being reported about this story.

[Corsair 115]

For what it's worth, the issue of using Shariah law in civil matters for those of the Muslim faith came up in Ontario several years back. A panel had studied the issue and recommended Sharia law options be implemented.

The provincial government eventually rejected the idea, bascially saying that there would only be one set of civil laws for everyone in the province. (The fact that the issue was politically a loser for the government and would have cost it votes no doubt had much to do with the decision.)

CBC News story about the rejection of Sharia law here: Ontario Premier rejects use of Shariah law

[kosai]

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

I'm sure there are some pseudo-liberals out there that would embrace abandoning the notion of universal human rights in favor of cultural relativism where the principles of equal rights and self determination would only apply to the "west" and we should allow room for Muslims to practice misogyny, racism, anti homosexual philosophy, female genital mutilation, fascism, etc. and that "we" should be accommodating to such beliefs.
Fortunately, most liberals are much wiser than embracing such a backwards non liberal philosophy as Sharia law.

I don't understand the notion of "gee, it would be just terrible for 'us' to discriminate against gays but I have no problem if 'they' want to discriminate against gays" In fact, the whole notion of "us" and "them" is poisonous politics. People living in the same land and same government need to live under the same rules, Muslim, Christians, and atheists alike. Identity politics based on religion or race is a recipe for disaster. Same rules for everybody, deal with it.

Thank Allah someone gets it. I can't believe you other "liberals" would buy into this crap just for the sake of making everyone feel warm and welcome. I also can't believe the left here is represented with a comment as misguided as...

"I would like to meet as many Americans as possible, and have them meet me, just so they can see what an Iraqi looks like before they kill him."-- Fadhil Al-Kazily, Iraqi-American peace activist

If we were to take the reverse of that statement would you consider it a relavent quote to use as your signature?

"I would like to meet as many Muslims as possible, and have them meet me, just so they can see what an American looks like before they fly a fully loaded 747 into my place of employment."

Unless you are using such a lame quote in a joking manner, in which case I apologize. I'm a democrat but this kind of logic makes us all look really bad.

[Dragon]

Here's a link to the speech in full from the Archbish's site - Haven't read it all yet.

[Par]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

If they do that for everyone, which they do, it's a problem. If they decide they don't want gays getting married, and only apply that law to themselves, that's fine by me. If you're a gay evengelical, then it's up to you to sort out what you think should happen.

Well, what you’re describing there isn’t law. Rather, it’s simply personal choice. If such people don’t wish to engage in homosexual behavior, then of course they are free to choose not to. No reform of the legal system is necessary.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by kosai

Thank Allah someone gets it. I can't believe you other "liberals" would buy into this crap just for the sake of making everyone feel warm and welcome. I also can't believe the left here is represented with a comment as misguided as...

"I would like to meet as many Americans as possible, and have them meet me, just so they can see what an Iraqi looks like before they kill him."-- Fadhil Al-Kazily, Iraqi-American peace activist

If we were to take the reverse of that statement would you consider it a relavent quote to use as your signature?

"I would like to meet as many Muslims as possible, and have them meet me, just so they can see what an American looks like before they fly a fully loaded 747 into my place of employment."

Unless you are using such a lame quote in a joking manner, in which case I apologize. I'm a democrat but this kind of logic makes us all look really bad.

It's only to be used for civil matters, and such agreements will be legally binding. Jewish communities have already been using such a system, and the world hasn't ended yet. Last time I checked, the Zionists hadn't taken over the world.

[Cainkane1]

Originally Posted by bridgy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7233335.stm



Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks the UK should allow the adoption of Sharia Law alongside UK law, in order to reduce the alienation of Muslims. From the above article:



This has sparked a massive response from the British media, and public and political reaction appears to be almost universally negative - with the exception of muslim spokesmen on news programmes!

The principles involved remind me of the row about laws on equality for homosexuals last year sparked by Catholics wanting exemption from anti discrimination laws on the basis of their religious faith - and no doubt part of the archbishop's agenda is for Christians to be able to opt out of laws they don't like too.



Well allowing different religions to opt out of UK law for their own versions is far more dangerous and likely to cause or increase friction and mistrust between communities in my opinion.



No, that's exactly what we want! UK law is democratic. What he's talking about is democracy standing up against minority religious doctrine - thankfully it seems most British people still think this is a good idea!

Your thoughts?

I have only this to say. The free world needs to limit or halt the immigration of these savages into a free society.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

I have only this to say. The free world needs to limit or halt the immigration of these savages into a free society.

I wasn't aware that the Archbishop of Canterbury was intending to immigrate anywhere.

[kosai]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

It's only to be used for civil matters, and such agreements will be legally binding. Jewish communities have already been using such a system, and the world hasn't ended yet. Last time I checked, the Zionists hadn't taken over the world.

I have no illusion that this will bring an end to democracy or anything of the sort. Saying "but the Jews have it!!" doesn't at all address the issue. I don't think anyone should have special religious based "opt in law" including Jews. Can you give me an example of how this can be beneficial? Can't these needs be served in already existing contracts?

[Nogbad]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

It's only to be used for civil matters, and such agreements will be legally binding. Jewish communities have already been using such a system, and the world hasn't ended yet. Last time I checked, the Zionists hadn't taken over the world.

You clearly haven't read some of the stuff in the conspiracy threads

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by kosai

I have no illusion that this will bring an end to democracy or anything of the sort. Saying "but the Jews have it!!" doesn't at all address the issue. I don't think anyone should have special religious based "opt in law" including Jews. Can you give me an example of how this can be beneficial? Can't these needs be served in already existing contracts?

How it can be beneficial - alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (and that is what we are talking about here) tend to be much cheaper and much quicker than pursuing a legal claim.

Served in already existing contracts? Possibly not, as the wording would need to be included in the contract when signed. Could be done by way of amendment though. If you mean served within existing contract law, absolutely. That appears to be all that is proposed.

There are already a multitude of alternative dispute resolution systems operating in the UK. This seems not to have led to the end of the legal system.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

I wasn't aware that the Archbishop of Canterbury was intending to immigrate anywhere.

And whilst he may be known for being an intellectual Christian I doubt any one could ever describe him as "savage", his criticisms make Geoffrey Howe seem like a rabid doberman!