When will the madness end...Sharia courts in the UK given legal power...

[De_Bunk]

I cant take much more of this kinda thing...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

Racist...No...just sick of the UK pandering to religious nutjobs who believe that i should be dead for not worshipping their version of the big, invisible being that lives in the sky...

I'm sick of the ******* liberal ********

DB

 

[a_unique_person]

I cant take much more of this kinda thing...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

Racist...No...just sick of the UK pandering to religious nutjobs who believe that i should be dead for not worshipping their version of the big, invisible being that lives in the sky...

I'm sick of the ******* liberal ***************

DB

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

It's only binding if you agree to let it be. You don't have to agree to it.

 

[gtc]

It's only binding if you agree to let it be. You don't have to agree to it.

I am concerned that includes domestic violence cases. I think if domestic violence is suspected then we should question whether the alleged victim is being pressured into accepting the authority of the sharia courts.

 

[Darat]

Been gone over a few times before - this is nothing new, anybody can agree to any form of arbitration whether that be the Jewish court system, a Sharia court or your Uncle Bob's decision.

 

[brodski]

I am concerned that includes domestic violence cases. I think if domestic violence is suspected then we should question whether the alleged victim is being pressured into accepting the authority of the sharia courts.

in the UK domestic violence is a criminal matter, these tribunals can only arbitrate civil disputes.

 

[gtc]

Been gone over a few times before - this is nothing new, anybody can agree to any form of arbitration whether that be the Jewish court system, a Sharia court or your Uncle Bob's decision.

I wasn't aware of religous based arbitration being used in criminal cases before. I know that they have tried to use traditional forms of arbitration amongst the Australian Aborigines with mixed success.

 

[Darat]

Unfortunately Brodski the report does not read like that:

...snip....

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.

...snip...

 

[gtc]

To add to what Darat posted:

Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. “All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,” said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.

 

[a_unique_person]

Dbunk, I think your problem is you are reading a Murdoch rag. Try the "Independant".

 

[brodski]

Unfortunately Brodski the report does not read like that:

but it does, note the police only stopped investigations after the complaints were withdrawn- following the tribunal-, which shows that the criminal investigations were still ongoing at the time of these civil arbitrations.

Given that the police still had the power to investigate and prosecute regardless of whether the complaint had been withdrawn or not, I don't see how the fault lies with the civil arbitration.

 

[Darat]

I wasn't aware of religous based arbitration being used in criminal cases before. I know that they have tried to use traditional forms of arbitration amongst the Australian Aborigines with mixed success.

They don't and I am just refreshing my understanding of the act (you can can find it here: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960023_en_1) I suspect there is some quite bad blurring of the lines in that report.

For instance another one I spotted was this one "The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts." This is not correct, the amount awarded to each person could have varied under a "normal" British court as well, it would have depended on what was argued in court. It may simply have been the people involved in this instance took the Sharia route because they thought the outcome would be what they wanted.

 

[gtc]

Dbunk, I think your problem is you are reading a Murdoch rag. Try the "Independant".

Here is part of an article by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in the Independent:

Want Sharia law? Tough, you've got it
Through the back door, this government's band of holy ministers have quietly institutionalised Sharia law, much to the chagrin of British Muslims, who know what this means – the drift towards Islamic law, separation, inequality; the injustice of religious justice.
Five Sharia courts are enforcing rulings in family and monetary disputes, and inevitably women come out much worse than they would under our national legislation. Domestic violence cases are "settled" in good Islamic ways, so the wife goes back into the marriage and presumably happily accepts chastisement.

...

Separatists argue they are only claiming the same rights, which are legally recognised in Britain. So abolish both. Jewish and Muslim Britons should expect to be treated exactly like all other nationals and accept common principles of conduct and rights.
What makes me most sore is that these vital decisions on religious courts were taken without any democratic vote or referendum among believers.

And they call this a democracy.

I think this isn't too long an extract.

I fail to see how this is superior to The Times' coverage

 

[Darat]

It's another article that forgets to mention two very important facts - one the limits on what these arbitration courts can decide on and secondly the fact that all parties have to agree to be bound by these.

Whilst I am appalled that people would choose to use a religiously inspired arbitration I am very opposed to removing this right as I want to continue to decide for myself (in my own business dealings and the like) what is the best arbitration to use.

 

[gtc]

Thankyou Brodski and Darat.

I think that clarifies things quite well, although I think it should be very strongly monitored to ensure that people choosing to go to arbitration instead of seeking recourse through the criminal justice system are not put at too great a disadvantage.

Women are vulnerable to pressure from spouses to withdraw complaints of domestic violence. A woman whose husband is willing to attend arbitration is probably better off than a woman who doesn't have access to arbitration but whose husband pressures her to withdraw her complaint.

 

[Darat]

And something else to bear in mind - in some Sharia systems there is the absolute madness of the type that there is not symmetry within even the acceptance of testimonial evidence of a man and a woman, that type of madness can't be brought into play in any of these arbitration cases.

 

[Darat]

Have to say despite it requiring the consent of all parties involved given the way religiously united communities tend to operate how truly free will people be to consent or not? There has been criticisms over the years in the UK about some of the tightknit Jewish communities and the resulting pressure being a member of that community puts on someone to agree to accept the Jewish based arbitration

 

[WildCat]

Have to say despite it requiring the consent of all parties involved given the way religiously united communities tend to operate how truly free will people be to consent or not? There has been criticisms over the years in the UK about some of the tightknit Jewish communities and the resulting pressure being a member of that community puts on someone to agree to accept the Jewish based arbitration

It should be abolished for both. Religious institutions shouldn't be involved in civil proceedings, period.

Just look at the way sexual abuse was covered up by the Catholic Church in the USA for Exhibit A as to why this is a bad idea. Thankfully, once in the open the Catholic Church "resolutions" had no legal bearing whatsoever here, and priests have been sent to prison and the church forced to pay damages in civil proceedings.

 

[Darat]

Can't see how this is related at all to your example?

 

[a_unique_person]

It should be abolished for both. Religious institutions shouldn't be involved in civil proceedings, period.

If it was a blanket ban, on that basis, that religion should be kept apart from the law, I'd be for it.

 

[Darat]

This is not about religion nor about any religious rights this is about the rights of individuals to determine how (within the law of the E, W & NI) certain civil matters will be arbitrated.

ETA: Having many times to use arbitration services I can tell you that it is right that saves a lot of time and money when used in the appropriate manner.