Sharia Law in the UK?

[JoeEllison]

allowances for binding arbitration between consenting parties based on religious rules....

fanatic suicide bombers killing thousands...

Do you really not see the difference?

It all looks the same to some people... bigotry is a nasty goddamned thing, isn't it?

 

[a_unique_person]

Such as...?

Some Jewish communities observe their own relgigious legal institutions/laws, and are permitted to use these for some civil, legal matters. I have no more problem with that than this, if that is what those people want.

 

[a_unique_person]

And how do you know both parties are really consenting, as opposed to bullied into it, particularly women?

Bullying someone into agreeing to a legally binding contract is against the criminal law (IANAL). If that were to happen, I would expect those women to go to the criminal system.

 

[pomeroo]

It all looks the same to some people... bigotry is a nasty goddamned thing, isn't it?

Yup, bigots are goddamned nasty people. Imagine your reaction to some Bible-thumper's proposal for special civil codes applicable to evangelical Christians.

Hypocrite.

 

[a_unique_person]

Yup, bigots are goddamned nasty people. Imagine your reaction to some Bible-thumper's proposal for special civil codes applicable to evangelical Christians.

Hypocrite.

If they do that for everyone, which they do, it's a problem. If they decide they don't want gays getting married, and only apply that law to themselves, that's fine by me. If you're a gay evengelical, then it's up to you to sort out what you think should happen.

 

[quixotecoyote]

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".

I hedge towards being against it for that reason, but that's a world apart from the insanity pomeroo was trying to pawn off.

I'm ambivalent because if UK law is anyting like US law, you can already do a pretty decent imitation contractually, through pre-nuptials, and the like. This doesn't seem like it would do much more than simplify the process.

Plus, saying, "You aren't really a consenting adult, you just say you are, therefore we can protectively legislate regarding you" is problematic on several levels.

 

[mrbaracuda]

It's possible he meant no more than that arrangements should be made to accommodate Moslem[ view]s

You can stop there I think.

 

[portlandatheist]

I'm sure there are some pseudo-liberals out there that would embrace abandoning the notion of universal human rights in favor of cultural relativism where the principles of equal rights and self determination would only apply to the "west" and we should allow room for Muslims to practice misogyny, racism, anti homosexual philosophy, female genital mutilation, fascism, etc. and that "we" should be accommodating to such beliefs.
Fortunately, most liberals are much wiser than embracing such a backwards non liberal philosophy as Sharia law.

I don't understand the notion of "gee, it would be just terrible for 'us' to discriminate against gays but I have no problem if 'they' want to discriminate against gays" In fact, the whole notion of "us" and "them" is poisonous politics. People living in the same land and same government need to live under the same rules, Muslim, Christians, and atheists alike. Identity politics based on religion or race is a recipe for disaster. Same rules for everybody, deal with it.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I'm ambivalent because if UK law is anyting like US law, you can already do a pretty decent imitation contractually, through pre-nuptials, and the like. This doesn't seem like it would do much more than simplify the process.

Plus, saying, "You aren't really a consenting adult, you just say you are, therefore we can protectively legislate regarding you" is problematic on several levels.

It is very common these days in UK contracts to have a clause regarding what will happen if there is a contractual dispute (usually something like accepting arbitration by a QC) and most of the time the courts will accept that this is binding on the parties involved. The reason why I say "most of the time" is that there is a little niggle in this and that is that the law as it currently stands means that such arbitration does not have to be in accordance with UK law; so you can in fact use such a clause to try and circumvent statutory rights, apply penalties that would not be legal in UK law and so on. However some such clauses have been successfully challenged in a court on the grounds that they are not in accordance with UK laws and remove rights we are "guaranteed".

Just as a FYI - prenuptial agreements are not legally binding contracts over here since marriage and divorce are dictated by law - although such agreements may be considered by a court if the divorce ever gets to the court stage.

____________

More general points - first of all I am not in one way surprised by Canterbury's remarks (after all to him religion should determine what society is meant to be), what I am surprised about is that he is wanting to promote a non-Anglican faith, rather remiss of him!

By the way has any one got any up-to-date polls of how many British people who are Muslim would want Sharia law to apply to them?

Regarding other religious groups already having their own "law", probably the best known in the UK would be the Jewish "Beth Din", this is the Jewish equivalent of a Sharia based court and exists because many Jews do not believe that secular courts have authority over them and it is a religious obligation and in England at least (don't know about NI and the other legal systems) if both parties agree to be bound by such a court the result is legally binding. (Interestingly last year there was a very good Radio 4 programme that discussed the ramifications of such a court and the problems it caused for women when their husbands would not allow(!) a divorce which is apparently a requirement.)

Personally I think we should not be looking to extend religion in our legal system but it is already in place in some areas and has been for a long time so I do think there is more than a whiff of anti-Muslim in much of what is being reported about this story.

 

[Corsair 115]

For what it's worth, the issue of using Shariah law in civil matters for those of the Muslim faith came up in Ontario several years back. A panel had studied the issue and recommended Sharia law options be implemented.

The provincial government eventually rejected the idea, bascially saying that there would only be one set of civil laws for everyone in the province. (The fact that the issue was politically a loser for the government and would have cost it votes no doubt had much to do with the decision.)

CBC News story about the rejection of Sharia law here: Ontario Premier rejects use of Shariah law

 

[kosai]

I'm sure there are some pseudo-liberals out there that would embrace abandoning the notion of universal human rights in favor of cultural relativism where the principles of equal rights and self determination would only apply to the "west" and we should allow room for Muslims to practice misogyny, racism, anti homosexual philosophy, female genital mutilation, fascism, etc. and that "we" should be accommodating to such beliefs.
Fortunately, most liberals are much wiser than embracing such a backwards non liberal philosophy as Sharia law.

I don't understand the notion of "gee, it would be just terrible for 'us' to discriminate against gays but I have no problem if 'they' want to discriminate against gays" In fact, the whole notion of "us" and "them" is poisonous politics. People living in the same land and same government need to live under the same rules, Muslim, Christians, and atheists alike. Identity politics based on religion or race is a recipe for disaster. Same rules for everybody, deal with it.

Thank Allah someone gets it. I can't believe you other "liberals" would buy into this crap just for the sake of making everyone feel warm and welcome. I also can't believe the left here is represented with a comment as misguided as...

"I would like to meet as many Americans as possible, and have them meet me, just so they can see what an Iraqi looks like before they kill him."-- Fadhil Al-Kazily, Iraqi-American peace activist

If we were to take the reverse of that statement would you consider it a relavent quote to use as your signature?

"I would like to meet as many Muslims as possible, and have them meet me, just so they can see what an American looks like before they fly a fully loaded 747 into my place of employment."

Unless you are using such a lame quote in a joking manner, in which case I apologize. I'm a democrat but this kind of logic makes us all look really bad.

 

[Dragon]

Here's a link to the speech in full from the Archbish's site - Haven't read it all yet.

 

[Par]

If they do that for everyone, which they do, it's a problem. If they decide they don't want gays getting married, and only apply that law to themselves, that's fine by me. If you're a gay evengelical, then it's up to you to sort out what you think should happen.

Well, what you’re describing there isn’t law. Rather, it’s simply personal choice. If such people don’t wish to engage in homosexual behavior, then of course they are free to choose not to. No reform of the legal system is necessary.

 

[a_unique_person]

Thank Allah someone gets it. I can't believe you other "liberals" would buy into this crap just for the sake of making everyone feel warm and welcome. I also can't believe the left here is represented with a comment as misguided as...

"I would like to meet as many Americans as possible, and have them meet me, just so they can see what an Iraqi looks like before they kill him."-- Fadhil Al-Kazily, Iraqi-American peace activist

If we were to take the reverse of that statement would you consider it a relavent quote to use as your signature?

"I would like to meet as many Muslims as possible, and have them meet me, just so they can see what an American looks like before they fly a fully loaded 747 into my place of employment."

Unless you are using such a lame quote in a joking manner, in which case I apologize. I'm a democrat but this kind of logic makes us all look really bad.

It's only to be used for civil matters, and such agreements will be legally binding. Jewish communities have already been using such a system, and the world hasn't ended yet. Last time I checked, the Zionists hadn't taken over the world.

 

[Cainkane1]

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:



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.



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.



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?

I have only this to say. The free world needs to limit or halt the immigration of these savages into a free society.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I have only this to say. The free world needs to limit or halt the immigration of these savages into a free society.

I wasn't aware that the Archbishop of Canterbury was intending to immigrate anywhere.

 

[kosai]

It's only to be used for civil matters, and such agreements will be legally binding. Jewish communities have already been using such a system, and the world hasn't ended yet. Last time I checked, the Zionists hadn't taken over the world.

I have no illusion that this will bring an end to democracy or anything of the sort. Saying "but the Jews have it!!" doesn't at all address the issue. I don't think anyone should have special religious based "opt in law" including Jews. Can you give me an example of how this can be beneficial? Can't these needs be served in already existing contracts?

 

[Nogbad]

It's only to be used for civil matters, and such agreements will be legally binding. Jewish communities have already been using such a system, and the world hasn't ended yet. Last time I checked, the Zionists hadn't taken over the world.

You clearly haven't read some of the stuff in the conspiracy threads

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I have no illusion that this will bring an end to democracy or anything of the sort. Saying "but the Jews have it!!" doesn't at all address the issue. I don't think anyone should have special religious based "opt in law" including Jews. Can you give me an example of how this can be beneficial? Can't these needs be served in already existing contracts?

How it can be beneficial - alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (and that is what we are talking about here) tend to be much cheaper and much quicker than pursuing a legal claim.

Served in already existing contracts? Possibly not, as the wording would need to be included in the contract when signed. Could be done by way of amendment though. If you mean served within existing contract law, absolutely. That appears to be all that is proposed.

There are already a multitude of alternative dispute resolution systems operating in the UK. This seems not to have led to the end of the legal system.

 

[Darat]

I wasn't aware that the Archbishop of Canterbury was intending to immigrate anywhere.

And whilst he may be known for being an intellectual Christian I doubt any one could ever describe him as "savage", his criticisms make Geoffrey Howe seem like a rabid doberman!