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:

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.

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.

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:

"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:

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.

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.

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???

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[WildCat]

similar allowances made for the Jewish community

Such as...?

 

[pomeroo]

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]

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.