Sharia law is accepted in the UK

[The Guid]

I am too stupid to dress my links unless a mod does it for me!

Perhaps the above article we state my position better than I can. It essentially points out that if women are able to be pressured into marriages against their will then they can certrainly be pressured into arbitration against their will. I think it is all too easy for us to think we can overcome this by going to the police and the courts, but with another so called legitimate option there this is less possible.

Think about it - if domestic violence has to go through the British courts then all they have to do is go to them, the only authority recognised for this. If this can then go to the Sharia courts then on what grounds can the women reject them? She has to reject her community and her faith as well as her husband.

I'm not saying this will ALWAYS happen, but can you tell me that it will never happen? That this won't cause problems for at the very least one woman? Leave her in a domestic abuse situation when she could have avoided? Even one case is enough to damn this. Unless you can show there is some benefit, which you have so far failed to do.

[Darth Wong]

Wow, you found an editorial which agrees with you. Such devastating evidence, particularly when the author of the editorial cites no statistics whatsoever, and the arguments therein are nothing more than a collection of other peoples' editorials.

Think about it - if domestic violence has to go through the British courts then all they have to do is go to them, the only authority recognised for this. If this can then go to the Sharia courts then on what grounds can the women reject them? She has to reject her community and her faith as well as her husband.

And therein lies the rub, doesn't it? That's the part you don't get. She must reject her faith community in order to violate Sharia law.

The point you're ignoring is that this is true regardless of whether Sharia arbitration is recognized by the British courts; do you honestly not understand this? The very article you cite points out itself that the same has been true for quite some time for Orthodox Jews. It doesn't mean they can't go and get a legally binding divorce in civil court; it just means the Sharia courts won't recognize it, which only matters to her if she is unwilling to reject her faith community.

[The Guid]

First off, if you'll note my wording I didn't actually cite the article as evidence, just as a way of suggesting she might word it better than I might. Because I'm not a journalist or a professional writer of any kind.


It should also be added that I am not offended by this because of some belief that it is spoiling my fair and pleasent land or any other nationalistic bollocks. Its a feminist matter, and a secularist matter at that. I have not been accused of this, but I feel it important to make this clear.

I am not ignoring the point that this can happen without legal recognition of Sharia. I am not suggesting that you end the problem overnight, because it existed before. I understand that. Its fairly simple. I am arguing in increments, in terms of what is good for people and what is not good for people.

But surely it is also very simple that it legitimises the Sharia law in the eyes of the police, and in the eyes of the community at large. Now that the Sharia courts exist after the police have been contacted, potentially, it is so much easier to go there. Whereas before she could remain within the community after she had gone to the police, she now has to face another burden of turning away from the elders to whom she can now turn instead of going to a British judge, as the case should have been turned to. By having this process in place, you now have the initial "break out" move of going to the police, a bold step, but you place in the further burden of having to actually CHOOSE to not allow your own "elders" to decide your case. It won't be a rarity, it'll be the standard, the norm, for certain communities. It won't be seen as "choosing" the Sharia courts, but of rejecting them, whatever the law says in theory.

So again, I ask two questions:
Can you at least imagine one case where this might cause some harm, or make it harder to get real justice?
and
Does this do any good? Anything benevolent to balance this harm?

If you can't imagine a single case where this might do harm I guess I'll concede the argument, because I don't know how else to argue it.

[Darth Wong]

Why do I have to justify it by saying that it might produce some positive benefit? This is not a change in policy; this is simply the Sharia courts realizing that they can use the pre-existing Arbitration Act to make themselves into binding arbitrators.

YOU are the one who bears the burden of proof that it WILL cause so much damage to society that it warrants making a special religious exemption to the Arbitration Act to exclude Islam, and then explaining how the fuck you would legally justify that exemption.

[The Guid]

It'll cause little damage to society because the problem will be self contained, as with most of the problems of domestic violence. Its the powerless who will suffer, and that won't spil of into my life one iota. Its an issue of fairness, and looking out for those who are gonna get dumped on.

Do you not find it suspicious that all six domestic violence cases have been dealt with in such a way that the man doesn't even get a slap on the wrist? After they've been reported to police? If the worst I got for something I liked doing was having to go to some classes and chat with some "elders" I'd do it, and I wouldn't fear the consequences.

Perhaps the exemption could be made in cases of domestic violence, stipulating that it was a criminal case and not a civil one. I'm no lawyer. At the very least that would do something worthwhile even if the sexist practise of giving the sons more wealth than the daughters was just something we were going to have to live.

I asked the question about whether you thought it would do harm in at least once case because it would then be causing harm. And for something to be tolerable some good needs to come out of it. A curfew would likely stop some harm to society, but there are some benefits to not having a curfew that makes it the wrong thing for a society. Its a balancing act. I was not asking you for the burden of proof right off the bat.

[JBG]

So if a husband forces his wife to sign something saying they will resolve all disputes in this sharia court, the wife can't back out of it later. That may be different in the UK though.

What about duress? In Australia, a contract cannot be held as valid if it was made under duress. I have this strong feeling that this would also apply in Britain, given the origins of the Australian judiciary; which would mean that a wife could technically back out of it later, though in actuality there are other factors which would probably result in her not backing out. I'd be quite surprised if America actually found a contract made under duress legal.

The way that the concept of duress is applied is through the mechanism of 'legal capacity". ie was there a bona fide informed consent by a person otherwise of assumed adult legal capacity. In NSW anyway.

[JBG]

Mr Wong wrote:

"Why do I have to justify it by saying that it might produce some positive benefit? This is not a change in policy; this is simply the Sharia courts realizing that they can use the pre-existing Arbitration Act to make themselves into binding arbitrators."

I wasn't aware that the Arbitration Act was that old. But I must confess that I am not really up to date on UK legislation. Commercial arbitration and domestic mediation ( leaving out violence ) are treated quite differently in Australia.

[PeZook]

For fuck's sake, Guid, do you even understand the difference between arbitration and criminal prosecution?

You can't get the police to enforce an illegal ruling by an arbitration court!

If a Muslim woman is being abused in her household, her husband drags her before a Sharia arbitrator, and he says the husband can do whatever the fuck he wants, this isn't binding: because you can't legally enter a civil agreement which violates criminal law! It's only possible to use arbitration where the common law is silent, in accordance with the maxim that whateves is not forbidden is allowed.

Your entire tangent about household abuse is a complete red herring. Sharia arbitrators don't, in any way or form, make it legal, and abused spouses have not been magically stripped of their rights if they were pressured into silent acceptance by their communities before.

[Lord Pounder]

One question I have is mainly to do with the source, The Mail On Sunday is hardly a bastion of journalism excellence, lets face it the Mail is just a more articulate Sun minus the Page 3 b00bage. Has this story been reported by any other source?

[The Guid]

For fuck's sake, Guid, do you even understand the difference between arbitration and criminal prosecution?

You can't get the police to enforce an illegal ruling by an arbitration court!

If a Muslim woman is being abused in her household, her husband drags her before a Sharia arbitrator, and he says the husband can do whatever the fuck he wants, this isn't binding: because you can't legally enter a civil agreement which violates criminal law! It's only possible to use arbitration where the common law is silent, in accordance with the maxim that whateves is not forbidden is allowed.

Your entire tangent about household abuse is a complete red herring. Sharia arbitrators don't, in any way or form, make it legal, and abused spouses have not been magically stripped of their rights if they were pressured into silent acceptance by their communities before.

Well apparently I have to state the obvious again.

Yes, I understand the difference between arbitration and criminal prosecution.

And no, I am not saying the police will enforce a man's right to beat his wife. I have never argued that. Nobody is. That's retarded, and it simplifies the argument.

Nor have I suggested that the courts will make it legal.

What I have suggested is that this will make it easier to keep domestic violence out of the bright light of the law, that it will make it harder for women to report these problems and have them dealt with because it will be assumed within certain communities that she should take it to the Sharia Court. It won't be about choosing thre Sharia court, she will be chastised as unfaithful and apostate for "rejecting" the Sharia court.

All it takes is one case where the above is true and harm has been done. Harm that doesn't seem to be balanced out by any positive benefits.

Why are people distorting my position to "ZOMG the police will totally beat women up and shoot them for not wearing the hijab" when I have now put it across at least twice now?

[Ford Prefect]

To be honest, I honestly don't think this will change much. The women who would have their right to go to an actual court for spousal abuse 'revoked' under this arbitration would have had it revoked before the change regardless. It doesn't actually make it any 'easier', because the ability of a husband to repress his wife has very little to do with the British common law system. This just allows assholes to feel a lot better about themselves.

[PeZook]

It won't be about choosing thre Sharia court, she will be chastised as unfaithful and apostate for "rejecting" the Sharia court.

She would've been chastised anyway for rejecting Sharia even if there was no legal framework for Sharia courts at all!

All it takes is one case where the above is true and harm has been done. Harm that doesn't seem to be balanced out by any positive benefits.

If this enormous social pressure existed before Sharia arbitrators got the bright idea to work under the Arbitration Act, then what changes? Assholes could still abuse women without those courts. If a woman's social circle would chastise her for rejecting Sharia courts and going for criminal prosecution, they'd have done this anyway - those courts existed for a long time before they took advantage of the Arbitration Act, you know, and to a Muslim, they were just as legitimate.

Besides, how do you propose to counter this effect? Ban Sharia arbitrators only? At least now, if an asshole husband wants to feel good about himself and gets an arbitration verdict, there will be some records left (I personally doubt many of such cases show up, really).

[The Guid]

Why do I have to repeat myself over and over?

I am not saying this wouldn't have happened before. It just makes it potentially slightly easier. What about those muslims who might only think the Sharia courts are OK because they are under UK law? Not all muslims are the same; some may be quite patriotic as well.

It is also the case that now the police can halt their investegations based on a sharia court decision because the woman will then drop the case. This might have happened before, but now there is a legitimised legal framework.

And my suggestion was to at the very least make it clear that domestic violence can not be solved by arbitration.

[Darth Wong]

You ask why you have to keep saying again and again that it will "make things easier" for abusers, but that's because no matter how many times you say it, you never justify it. The mechanisms you describe through which the system becomes coercive are all extra-legal in nature, and hence totally unaffected by Sharia courts' use of the Arbitration Act. You're full of shit.