Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

[hongi]

Um, maybe I'm an idiot, but I think its pretty clear that the Archbishop did not mean that the Muslim population should be able to set up there own complete legal system. The example given of the Orthodox Jewish courts suggests that they are only used for rather minor civil matters, and any violent crime or major infraction, including those resulting from enforcement of an ethnic or religious law, would still be illegal and subject to British Law. Not that this is a good idea, but it isn't the horrible slide back into the dark ages that you people are acting like it is.

Sharia is already practiced within Muslim families and communities. A sharia court would address similar 'minor' issues that occupy Muslim communities.

It's the same thing with orthodox Jewish courts.

Personally, it worries me. I don't like the idea of a legal system within a legal system, even if it only addresses family matters...

[NecronLord]

My first reaction to this was:

"This is a job for Sir Travis Mortimer."

[Stuart Mackey]

My first reaction to this was:

"This is a job for Sir Travis Mortimer."

Keh?

[NecronLord]

Keh?

The King's assassin in the first series of Blackadder, whom he sends to dispose of successive Archbishops.

[Stuart Mackey]

Keh?

The King's assassin in the first series of Blackadder, whom he sends to dispose of successive Archbishops.

Ahh, yeah, thats right. Long time no see that series.

[Quadlok]

I dont think you realize just what Sharia actually is. Sharia is the judicial interpretation of the Koran, it is not only a complete legal system but also dictates how a persons life shall be lived and it tolerates no others.

I know well enough what it is, and I also have a level of reading comprehension high enough to see that Williams says flat out that only a 'part' of Sharia ought to be allowed. To me it sounds more like all he's proposing is something more along the lines of a Judge Judy minor claims court set up than a full on stone the adulteress, cut off the thief's hand kind of deal. Its a way of throwing the unwashed masses a bone so maybe they'll be less inclined to blow up more buses or start in with massive riots like those in France. Whether it would be a slippery slope to a theocratic Muslim ghetto within Britain I don't know.

Again, not that this is a good idea, not that archaic legal code like Sharia shouldn't be held in the same regard as the Code of Hammurabi (i.e., interesting, historically relevant, but not useful or proper in a modern society), just that it isn't some horrible religious conspiracy to make us all change the brand of underwear we use.

[Keevan_Colton]

And you dont think throwing a bone to folk inclined to blow shit up and riot to get their own way is perhaps a very fucking poor idea?

[Quadlok]

And you dont think throwing a bone to folk inclined to blow shit up and riot to get their own way is perhaps a very fucking poor idea?

Did I say it was good? No. Honestly I think that a much more effective way to combat religious fundamentalism of any stripe would be to do what the US and Australia did in the last century to there native populations, kidnap the children and indoctrinate them into the national culture. But as that has even less chance of actually happening than every ignorant pig fucking fundie in the world suddenly standing up and declaring themselves an atheist, I foresee more half measures and lesser evils like this gaining more traction as 'solutions' in the near future.

[Stuart Mackey]

I dont think you realize just what Sharia actually is. Sharia is the judicial interpretation of the Koran, it is not only a complete legal system but also dictates how a persons life shall be lived and it tolerates no others.

I know well enough what it is, and I also have a level of reading comprehension high enough to see that Williams says flat out that only a 'part' of Sharia ought to be allowed.

Williams is an idiot, the very nature of Islam is such that it does not tolerate competitors, because that is what Mohammad commands in the Koran. A quick google showed one case of a UK Somali sharia court 'hearing' a criminal case.

Islamic and Jewish law remains confined to civil matters. But the BBC's Law in Action programme has learned that the Somali court hears criminal cases too.

One of the most serious cases it has dealt with was the "trial" of a group of young men accused of stabbing a fellow Somali.

"When the suspects were released on bail by the police, we got the witnesses and families together for a hearing," says Aydarus. "The accused men admitted their guilt and apologised. Their fathers and uncles agreed compensation."

BBC Link dressed in a burkha

To me it sounds more like all he's proposing is something more along the lines of a Judge Judy minor claims court set up than a full on stone the adulteress, cut off the thief's hand kind of deal. Its a way of throwing the unwashed masses a bone so maybe they'll be less inclined to blow up more buses or start in with massive riots like those in France. Whether it would be a slippery slope to a theocratic Muslim ghetto within Britain I don't know.

Ahh, the Neville Chamberlain method for dealing with unpleasantnesses.

Again, not that this is a good idea, not that archaic legal code like Sharia shouldn't be held in the same regard as the Code of Hammurabi (i.e., interesting, historically relevant, but not useful or proper in a modern society), just that it isn't some horrible religious conspiracy to make us all change the brand of underwear we use.

Your right its not a good idea, so why allow it if its not a good idea? oh thats right so maybe they don't blow up some buses or trains if they dont start getting their way.

[Broomstick]

The example given of the Orthodox Jewish courts...

You guys really have separate courts for Orthodox Jews?

Why?

Although there are a few recognized exceptions to a very few laws here for certain groups, no one outside the Native tribes has a separate court in the US, and even for the Natives that only applies on their territory - outside of their land, US law applies.

[Androsphinx]

The example given of the Orthodox Jewish courts...

You guys really have separate courts for Orthodox Jews?

Why?

Although there are a few recognized exceptions to a very few laws here for certain groups, no one outside the Native tribes has a separate court in the US, and even for the Natives that only applies on their territory - outside of their land, US law applies.

They do two different things, neither of which has any significant legal standing. First of all, they conduct Jewish weddings, on condition that all the legal criterea have been fulfilled. Because there's an established church (the CoE), and secular weddings (registry office, etc) are a recent phenomenon, the alternative was to make the Church handle them. But a Jewish wedding isn't recognised in the UK - you have to go through the secular system as well.

The other thing they do is arbitration of civil cases. These only have binding power if both sides agree to them, and the court has no power to enforce their rulings. It's identical to other forms of arbitration, but people often prefer it to the longer and more costly civil courts. I only have anecdotal evidence, but in most cases the ruling is according to civil law in any case. I've been to one once, when an ultraorthodox gentleman I did some work for tried to avoid paying me because... well, it's a long story.

This is not what Williams is talking about, because Muslims in the UK already have that - they can sign a contract of arbitration and go to an imam if they want. What is an issue is giving these community courts any sort of coercive power or legal recogition which they can use to enforce norms of behaviour, practice and appearance. Or to put it the other way round, legitimating discrimination against Muslims who do not toe the party line - be it politically, religiously or socially.

[hongi]

Put that way, my stance has gone from discomfort, leapt over disapproval to 'hell no'.

[Androsphinx]

Put that way, my stance has gone from discomfort, leapt over disapproval to 'hell no'.

That's the thing - outside the ultra-orthodox, no-one would think of handling things in such a way - the Jewish community is very anglicised and more comfortable with general secular society, so there's no move to increase the powers of the Jewish courts. Large sections of the muslim community are not integrated, and would use any legal legitimacy to try to avoid and subvert the influence of secular state authorities. Some ultraorthodox Jews do the same thing, or at least try to, but they are neither community leaders not possess significant political influence. The same cannot be said of, say, the Muslim Council of Britain.

Put another way - something like 40% of Muslim males between the ages of 18-30 in the UK think that the death penalty is acceptable for apsotates. These are not people you want to give extralegal powers to.

[Glocksman]

Put that way, my stance has gone from discomfort, leapt over disapproval to 'hell no'.

That's the thing - outside the ultra-orthodox, no-one would think of handling things in such a way - the Jewish community is very anglicised and more comfortable with general secular society, so there's no move to increase the powers of the Jewish courts. Large sections of the muslim community are not integrated, and would use any legal legitimacy to try to avoid and subvert the influence of secular state authorities. Some ultraorthodox Jews do the same thing, or at least try to, but they are neither community leaders not possess significant political influence. The same cannot be said of, say, the Muslim Council of Britain.

Put another way - something like 40% of Muslim males between the ages of 18-30 in the UK think that the death penalty is acceptable for apsotates. These are not people you want to give extralegal powers to.

In your case, did you agree to go before the 'Jewish' court?
Personally, out of sheer bloody mindedness I would have insisted upon a normal civil trial instead of before some quasi religious court.

[Androsphinx]

Put that way, my stance has gone from discomfort, leapt over disapproval to 'hell no'.

That's the thing - outside the ultra-orthodox, no-one would think of handling things in such a way - the Jewish community is very anglicised and more comfortable with general secular society, so there's no move to increase the powers of the Jewish courts. Large sections of the muslim community are not integrated, and would use any legal legitimacy to try to avoid and subvert the influence of secular state authorities. Some ultraorthodox Jews do the same thing, or at least try to, but they are neither community leaders not possess significant political influence. The same cannot be said of, say, the Muslim Council of Britain.

Put another way - something like 40% of Muslim males between the ages of 18-30 in the UK think that the death penalty is acceptable for apsotates. These are not people you want to give extralegal powers to.

In your case, did you agree to go before the 'Jewish' court?
Personally, out of sheer bloody mindedness I would have insisted upon a normal civil trial instead of before some quasi religious court.

Yes. Like I said, it's an arbitration and requires the consent of both parties. And it's more of a religious quasi-court than a quasi-religious court

I did think about whether or not it was the best thing to do, but I would otherwise have had to sue for the money, and hope that I got awarded costs. What would probably have happened was that I'd have got lawyered up, fixed a court date, and the money would have arrived the day before - leaving me with a bill.

For a bunch of bearded fundamentalists the court was very polite, considerate, raised a few eyebrows at the details of the case, but ruled in my favour, and told the guy off for not paying immediately.

(In a nutshell, his son was doing a Jewish Studies-type course, and he refused let him go to the Bible lectures on the grounds that they were heretical. Instead he hired me to teach him, give him readings, help prepare model answers and help with dissertation - without covering anything heretical. The son became less religious - not an atheist or anything, not even a non-fundamentalist - and he blamed me, and refused to pay. It was the strangest job I ever had.)

[Glocksman]

Yes. Like I said, it's an arbitration and requires the consent of both parties. And it's more of a religious quasi-court than a quasi-religious court

Yeah, that occurred to me right after I hit 'submit'.

[Beowulf]

The example given of the Orthodox Jewish courts...

You guys really have separate courts for Orthodox Jews?

Why?

Although there are a few recognized exceptions to a very few laws here for certain groups, no one outside the Native tribes has a separate court in the US, and even for the Natives that only applies on their territory - outside of their land, US law applies.

For those that are unaware: Native reservations are considered to be sovereign states, and therefore have all the rights and that any sovereign state has, such as maintaining a police force, legislature, and judiciary. However, just like any other sovereign state, it can only enforce it's laws on it's own territory.

[Shroom Man 777]

Maybe the UK should pay these sharia law lovers to emigrate to sharia law loving countries. How could they not refuse?

[Metatwaddle]

Marital disputes... worked out in Sharia court.

Why do I get the feeling that would royally fuck over any women involved?

[darthbob88]

Marital disputes... worked out in Sharia court.

Why do I get the feeling that would royally fuck over any women involved?

Because you can tell a hawk from a handsaw when the wind's from the south. I do not have a link, but there was a case discussed on this board of a woman who was raped, and subsequently found guilty of being in the company of a man who was not related to her.

[Darth Wong]

Marital disputes... worked out in Sharia court.

Why do I get the feeling that would royally fuck over any women involved?

Jehovah's Witnesses must face trials in front of church elders when they are accused of wrongdoing. This has been going on for more than a century and no one says a word about it, because people could simply leave the church and avoid these trials if they wanted to. I don't see how this is much different, if at all.

[Broomstick]

Jehovah's Witnesses practice shunning - they don't have a long history of killing people who break the rules.

[Broomstick]

The example given of the Orthodox Jewish courts...

You guys really have separate courts for Orthodox Jews?

Why?

Although there are a few recognized exceptions to a very few laws here for certain groups, no one outside the Native tribes has a separate court in the US, and even for the Natives that only applies on their territory - outside of their land, US law applies.

For those that are unaware: Native reservations are considered to be sovereign states, and therefore have all the rights and that any sovereign state has, such as maintaining a police force, legislature, and judiciary. However, just like any other sovereign state, it can only enforce it's laws on it's own territory.

In theory the native lands are sovereign, but historically that hasn't always been honored. They probably are more sovereign now than in the past.

[Darth Wong]

Jehovah's Witnesses practice shunning - they don't have a long history of killing people who break the rules.

Neither do Muslims in western countries, apart from the occasional anomaly which is no more common than Christians bugging out and killing people.

[Broomstick]

Westernized Muslims don't, no - but in the Detroit area (which is one of the most heavily Muslim US areas) "honor killings" have occurred for decades among the recently immigrated. I wouldn't call it common, but it's more likely to happen with Muslims than with some other religious group.

The US tolerates certain groups holding themselves apart and operating under slightly different rules - the Amish are one example - but that was only after a number of court cases went all the way to the Supreme Court and a large part of the basis for allowing those practices is that they do not endanger either society at large or the people involved. The US does not tolerate groups that advocate - much less demand, as does the Koran - that apostates be executed.