Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Who thought this was a good idea?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196165/Britain-85-sharia-courts-The-astonishing-spread-Islamic-justice-closed-doors.html
http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/prcs91.php/civitas
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340599/WikiLeaks-1-3-British-Muslim-students-killing-Islam-40-want-Sharia-law.html#ixzz18ntkRcP1

The Muslims who want to resolve their disputes by traditional Islamic means. A cursory search brought up that it is an "alternative form of dispute resolution" for Muslims who don't want to deal with British courts. Since it appears to operate within the British legal system, and is unable to issue rulings contrary to British law I fail to see the problem.

Amaya wrote:Who thought this was a good idea?

Why would anyone think this was a bad idea?

you kidding?
They are all in bed at the moment this side of the sea.
Just wait for it to kick off when they see this thread.

The potential problem is that it appears to be unaccountable, and although it is going to be argued that justice will be universally applied because it is according to the Quran, there is still the possibility of interpretations differing.

If people wish to settle disputes out of court with the Mosque acting as an intermediary I don't see a problem.

However it potentially means that there could be a section of society who will not recognise the secular legal system or at least as secondary to Shariah Law.
Overall it is not a helpful state of affairs imho
I'm off before the inevitable cyclone whips this thread to a phobic phrenzy.

Bookwrack wrote:

Amaya wrote:Who thought this was a good idea?

Why would anyone think this was a bad idea?

Because they don't have a penis and therefor are lesser in the eyes of Sharia law? Because Sharia law is hideously homophobic? Because Sharia law is a backwards, biased, corrupt, unfair piece of gak that makes the US legal system look almost saintly?

I am wholeheartedly against a religious court applying pressures and judgements not in keeping with the beliefs of the majority of the nation's populace.

I think the spread of these courts could well represent a threat to women within these communities finding justice according to the British notion of it and instead having misogynistic and prejudiced rulings from these courts.

I also think this further encourages the ghettoisation of the Islamic community within the UK, instead of the integration they claim to want.

It also sends a message that this group believe themselves above or beyond the courts of the crown, they are wrong in that. All citizens of the state should acquiesce to and abide by the state judiciary system.

No exceptions. This is not integration, this is quite the reverse and should be immediately quelled.

During my time with Social Services Child Protection, we had cause on several occasions to deal with members of the Jehovah's Witnesses community, I learnt that due to the way in which JW communities were governed and overseen by 'Elders', children making allegations to those Elders were encouraged and coerced to remain silent, sent back to the families where the abuse was taking place and the Elders covering over evidence and refusing and blocking outside agencies like the police or social services. Closed subcultures like these hide many wrongs and must be subject to the law of the land, not self regulation. It is still widely believed in child protection circles that the Watchtower HQ maintains a database of all allegations reported to them by the Elders that is massive in comparison to what has been reported to outside agencies.

Become part of the nation, abide by it's judgement and moral code or leave it. Don't create a miniature nation within it. Bring your cultural heritage to the table and join in, don't go behind locked doors and conduct your business in secret, that road simply leads to further mistrust and conflict.

It strikes me those calling for these Sharia Courts have no interest in joining the greater community of the nation and if so, frankly, should seek a nation more in keeping with their beliefs. Why are our courts not sufficient if they intend to remain within our laws?

Amaya wrote:Who thought this was a good idea?

Gordon 'spineless' Brown.

The idea is good on paper but is critically flawed. Its not full sharia law, just an allowance for sharia interpretation of comm on law. This means, so long as both parties agree in a civic dispute cases can be tried with sharia Law taken into account. however this only accounts for civil disputes so the punishment aspect of Sharia Law cannot be applied and a Sharia ruling must be agree upon by both parties in advance.

Why is this a bad idea?

1. Some communities have been asking for Sharia law since the 1980's at first it was laughed at, now they have it, but not what they want. The opinion of the hardline Moslem community is that the UK is weak doctrinally and can be taken over by the strong. Ask long enough and persistent enough and you will get what you want, by and large they are correct due to politically correct pandering.
The indication here is that this application of Sharia Law is only a step towards what hardline Moslems are actually after, so giving in to this has actually achieved nothing but given hope that the Uk can indeed be an Islamic state.
Frankly the pandering is unhealthy, extremists take advantage of political correctness but actually have a strong contempt for the politically correct, after all these extra rights and liberties and woolyness is quite anathema to them in actuality.

2. This leads to the second point, the politically correct while willing to bend the knee on the grounds of ethnic diversity are willing to completely ignore the well proven fact that such diversity is often at the expense of true liberty. Case is point being postal votes. Postal votes made a mockery of our democracy, in some subcultures the man of ther house votes, the woman does what she is told. postal voters are very often used to rob women of some communities, particularly those of Asian cultural origin of the vote.
Are we a democracy or are we not. Postal voting has to be got rid of unless required by need, such as for people who are unable to attend a polling station.
Why is this relevant? Because the same mentality that tells Moselm women in the UK that the pater familias votes, they dont is the same reasoning that enforces women to accept a Sharia Law court when it is evidently not in their interest to do so.
Again politically correct pandering is actually mutually exclusive with true equality, Sharia Law is grossly sexist, were it not favourable under one dogma, it would be rightfully discarded as contrary to the civil liberties of this nation. Try telling that to the new left though.

3. Sharia Law based precedents in common law are still precedents in common law, and the whole principle of the English legal system is that the need for a constitution is replaced by a living legal legacy going back centuries. Thus the English legal system can grow and adapt as it is based on common precedent rather than any single primary bill of statute, and is thus inherently stable. Adding a grossly unfair legal standpoint into the common legal system thus contaminates the legal system. Either that or Sharia Law rulings must be exempt from influencing common law, which makes the courts that apply them inherently toothless and sets a bad precedent in itself by which courts can be excluded from building a body of common law.

Orlanth wrote:Again politically correct pandering

It's rather misleading to claim Sharia law to be politically correct....

I actually consider Sharia law to be the epitome of politically incorrect laws. Far, far worse than any of the extremist conservative laws in many of the southern states to be sure.

I believe he means politically correct in the sense that they are pandering to Muslims in order to avoid being "Islamaphobic."

I would think people would rather be called merely islamophobic than both sexist AND homophobic.

Melissia wrote:I would think people would rather be called merely islamophobic than both sexist AND homophobic.

It's okay for Muslims to do that because they've been oppressed by the west and Christianity. Haven't you gotten the memo?

Apparently not.


Hrm. If I converted to islam, then turned lesbian and moved to a state with gay marriage to marry a non-islamic woman and adopted children there, would that be insulting enough to Islamic laws, or would I need to add more things to it?

Melissia wrote:Apparently not.


Hrm. If I converted to islam, then turned lesbian and moved to a state with gay marriage to marry a non-islamic woman and adopted children there, would that be insulting enough to Islamic laws, or would I need to add more things to it?

You could marry a female Muslim and then make some doodles of the Prophet.

Welcome to the early 90's. Glad you've been keeping up. These have been an issue for some time.

IAmTheWalrus wrote:

Melissia wrote:Apparently not.


Hrm. If I converted to islam, then turned lesbian and moved to a state with gay marriage to marry a non-islamic woman and adopted children there, would that be insulting enough to Islamic laws, or would I need to add more things to it?

You could marry a female Muslim and then make some doodles of the Prophet.

Surfing with a picture of the American flag on his shirt.

I disagree with this mockery of The Prophet (Peace be on Him).

You want to talk about two sets of laws you talk about Australia, where tribal justice is accepted by courts as a replacement for court punishment. It applies for criminal and civil matters, and consists largely of 'you glassed a dude in the tribe and shouldn't have so we're going to spear you in the leg'.

Meanwhile, you guys are freaking out over two parties agreeing to arbitration in a civil matter. When there has been the right to do so under Jewish law for over a century. I can't help but think this has a lot to do with the word Muslim and a lot less to do with the facts of the case.

Melissia wrote:Because they don't have a penis and therefor are lesser in the eyes of Sharia law? Because Sharia law is hideously homophobic? Because Sharia law is a backwards, biased, corrupt, unfair piece of gak that makes the US legal system look almost saintly?

Umm, the Sharia courts have their power granted under the Arbitration Act, which is for private parties in a civil dispute, where both parties agree to arbitration. It's for civil matters, like contract disputes and torts of negligence. Any and all protections granted by the state in criminal matters, including gender and sexual preference protections, are entirely unchanged.

We've had Judaic contract law courts in the UK for some decades. The Islamic contract law courts are the same idea. All contracts made have to obey English law. Where is the problem?

There are plenty of Christians complaining that the English law is too secular and anti-Christian, while some other Christians boast that English law is based on Christian principles.

Another bunch of people are complaining that English law is too influenced by European law, or by judges.

Yes, that is LEGALLY what is allowed. Which matters about as much as the brown stuff my cat just shat into his litterbox.

Sharia, being the corrupt piece of gak that it is, is being used for more than just that. A good example being a case in New Jersey (of course) where a man raped his wife and then used Sharia law to try and defend it. The court agreed because their religion states a woman can't refuse her husband sex.

Melissia wrote:

Bookwrack wrote:

Amaya wrote:Who thought this was a good idea?

Why would anyone think this was a bad idea?

Because they don't have a penis and therefor are lesser in the eyes of Sharia law? Because Sharia law is hideously homophobic? Because Sharia law is a backwards, biased, corrupt, unfair piece of gak that makes the US legal system look almost saintly?

Right, so you're yapping just because you like the noise. Try actually knowing something about the topic being discussed before getting all hot under the collar about it.

And just saw your above post. Yeah, try and get a handle on what the actual conversation is about before going off on a tear over it.

Bookwrack wrote:Try actually knowing something about the topic

Apparently, I know more than you if you think what I said was wrong. That case was a well known case in the US, and not the only one.

Stop trying to act superior. You're failing.

What's the name of the case?

And dismissing Sharia Law out of hand as something to not being worried about it is a serious mistake. We need to move away from any form of religious influences on law making simply because certain religions have a tendency to be intolerant of those outside of their religion. Essentially, you should be free to practice your religion as long as it doesn't harm anyone.

Melissia wrote:Yes, that is LEGALLY what is allowed. Which matters about as much as the brown stuff my cat just shat into his litterbox.

Sharia, being the corrupt piece of gak that it is, is being used for more than just that. A good example being a case in New Jersey (of course) where a man raped his wife and then used Sharia law to try and defend it. The court agreed because their religion states a woman can't refuse her husband sex.

No, that's not what happened. The New Jersey case case was for a restraining order, to be issued while the criminal case continued. The judge found that the man had acted as he thought reasonable given their marriage at the time, and dismissed the need for a restraining order given they were by this time divorced. The criminal proceedings continued anyway. At no point in the case was sharia law mentioned by anyone involved. That's a complete fantasy invented by people wanting to be outraged.

If you keep reading right wing scare mongering junk press, you will keep being lied to. I recommend you stop reading that junk.


Meanwhile, in the UK we're talking about private arbitration, that can apply if both parties agree, and this is only for civil matters. So you're complaints really just do not make any sense.

Melissia wrote:Yes, that is LEGALLY what is allowed. Which matters about as much as the brown stuff my cat just shat into his litterbox.

Sharia, being the corrupt piece of gak that it is, is being used for more than just that. A good example being a case in New Jersey (of course) where a man raped his wife and then used Sharia law to try and defend it. The court agreed because their religion states a woman can't refuse her husband sex.

Maybe that is part of US law? It was only 1994 when the UK revoked perpetual consent to sex within marriage.

Amaya wrote:What's the name of the case?

And dismissing Sharia Law out of hand as something to not being worried about it is a serious mistake. We need to move away from any form of religious influences on law making simply because certain religions have a tendency to be intolerant of those outside of their religion. Essentially, you should be free to practice your religion as long as it doesn't harm anyone.

The name I can find associated with it is "S.D. v. M.J.R. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.)"

sebster wrote:Meanwhile, in the UK we're talking about private arbitration, that can apply if both parties agree

... something which can be and is achieved through intimidation.

The mafia also got people to agree to private arbitration.

Amaya wrote:What's the name of the case?

Here's a summary of the story; http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/05/advocates-anti-shariah-measures-alarmed-judges-ruling/

It's from FOX news, so you can be sure there's no liberal bias. It was a request for a restraining order to be granted while the case was underway, and the judge says it wasn't needed because he was acting at the time as he thought a husband could, and given he was no longer her husband there was no reason to think he'd act like that anymore.

I don't agree with the decision, but the actual case has nothing to do with the flip out we've seen among the right wing fringe of the internet.

And dismissing Sharia Law out of hand as something to not being worried about it is a serious mistake. We need to move away from any form of religious influences on law making simply because certain religions have a tendency to be intolerant of those outside of their religion. Essentially, you should be free to practice your religion as long as it doesn't harm anyone.

But that's the thing, Sharia courts are just a part of their religion and aren't harming anyone. It is a form of private arbitration, that two parties can agree to to solve their civil dispute. If either party doesn't want to, or it's a criminal matter Sharia courts can't touch it. It is the same thing as agreeing to go on Judge Judy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:... something which can be and is achieved through intimidation.

The mafia also got people to agree to private arbitration.

But, again, only in a civil matter, not in a criminal matter. And if we're willing to consider the problems with agreement to arbitration being coerced, then it would be far simpler for the coercing party to coerce the victim into dropping the case entirely.

Melissia wrote:

sebster wrote:Meanwhile, in the UK we're talking about private arbitration, that can apply if both parties agree

... something which can be and is achieved through intimidation.

The mafia also got people to agree to private arbitration.

Are you saying that Italians and Islamic people are more likely to intimidate witnesses, than are other ethnic/religious groups?

http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a6107-08.opn.html

Here's some highlights:

"They were wed in Morocco in an arranged marriage on July 31, 2008, when plaintiff was seventeen years old. The parties did not know each other prior to the marriage." (Cultural diversity or outdated barbarism? I choose the latter.)

It goes on to describe the assaults. The defendant raped his wife multiple times and starved her.

Here is the judge's ruling:

"This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."

"[T]his is a case where there is no history of domestic violence. In fact, they have been — they were together for only three months. Then the bad patch was three weeks, and then another week. And then — and then, the record indicates that this defendant has filed for a divorce, he got divorced in — with the Imam, but the record indicates that he has filed for divorce in Morocco. This plaintiff has answered that complaint in Morocco. Divorce proceedings will occur in Morocco.
The defendant has indicated that he is finished with the marriage. The parties are living separate and apart now. This defendant's visa expires in July, I believe. "

"In this particular case, this court does not believe that a final restraining order is necessary under the circumstances. There's no need for the parties to be associated with one another. They are divorced now. They don't live together. They don't have to be together. . . .
[T]his was a situation of a short-term marriage, a very brief period of physical assault by the defendant against the plaintiff and it's now a situation where the parties don't live together, won't be living together and won't have a need to be in contact with one another.
Under those circumstances, the court finds that a final restraining order is not necessary to prevent another act of domestic violence. The Court will not enter a final restraining order."

Plaintiff appealed and a higher court overturned the original ruling.




Now, how the hell did we get to the point where rape is justifiable under any circumstances? We're living in the 21st century, not the 19th.

Kilkrazy wrote:Are you saying that Italians and Islamic people are more likely to intimidate witnesses, than are other ethnic/religious groups?

Of course not. Not all mobsters were Italian.

I oppose all instances of religious law being forced upon others. In this day and age, muslims tend to be the most fervent in doing so, on pain of death. Not the only ones, just the ones that, at the moment, tend to be most violent about it. What with their religion condoning the murder of anyone who converts from Islam. I also think the Christian Inquisition was a horrible, horrible thing, but that's not going on anymore for the most part.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Melissia wrote:

sebster wrote:Meanwhile, in the UK we're talking about private arbitration, that can apply if both parties agree

... something which can be and is achieved through intimidation.

The mafia also got people to agree to private arbitration.

Are you saying that Italians and Islamic people are more likely to intimidate witnesses, than are other ethnic/religious groups?

Hey, good job putting words in someone's mouth and implying something that they didn't come close to suggesting.