View Full Version : Sharia courts in the UK
cleanbluesky
15-09-2008, 09:56
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece
State censure of sharia to settle civil matters in the UK, this announcement just weeks after a documentary showed that Regent's Park mosque (Britains largest mosque, originally a gift to Muslims who fought in WW2) is being used to preach hatred towards the UK.
What's the connection between the UK allowing Sharia courts and the fact that documentary showed that a mosque is being used to preach hatred? :confused:
AboveTheSalt
15-09-2008, 10:22
What's the connection between the UK allowing Sharia courts and the fact that a documentary showed that a mosque is being used to preach hatred? :confused:Bigotry :dunno:
cleanbluesky
15-09-2008, 11:14
What's the connection between the UK allowing Sharia courts and the fact that documentary showed that a mosque is being used to preach hatred? :confused:
It shows that even the longest standing institution of Islam in the UK has become corrupt, seeking new way to legitimise it within law are bogus given what already exists has been turned into a tool of hatred
cleanbluesky
15-09-2008, 11:15
Bigotry :dunno:
If that WERE the motivation of those who disagree with Islam, it would be a lot easier for people such as yourself to convince yourself to approve. Selective attention is another good one.
It shows that even the longest standing institution of Islam in the UK has become corrupt, seeking new way to legitimise it within law are bogus given what already exists has been turned into a tool of hatred
I still fail to see the link.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece
State censure of sharia to settle civil matters in the UK, this announcement just weeks after a documentary showed that Regent's Park mosque (Britains largest mosque, originally a gift to Muslims who fought in WW2) is being used to preach hatred towards the UK.
Have you read the Arbitration Act? That is the law used to allow these "Sharia Courts", the same that allows Jewish Beit Din to rule on Jewish matters. Or would allow you to resolve a dispute by playing a hand of snap if you wish.
They have no special powers, other than those conferred to them by people consenting to be bound by their arbitration, but even then British Law still overrules and you can appeal to the normal courts if the arbitration is contrary to it.
Like the others, I fail to see how the two items in your post are related.
cleanbluesky
15-09-2008, 13:12
There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.
Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.
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.
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
If you cant see the relation then you need to think - existing Islamic institution within the UK is corrupt, this is certainly not the time to further embrace it.
If you cant see the relation then you need to think - existing Islamic institution within the UK is corrupt, this is certainly not the time to further embrace it.
Court =! Mosque.
cleanbluesky
15-09-2008, 13:17
Court =! Mosque.
You're going to have to express yourself a bit better than simply stating the obvious.
If you cant see the relation then you need to think - existing Islamic institution within the UK is corrupt, this is certainly not the time to further embrace it.
I'm not sure you understand, you are free to have a matter arbitrated as you see fit, as long as all parties agree to it, this "sharia court" has no special recognition beyond any other arbitration panel, nor any explicit or implicit approval by any government or legal body.
No one can be compelled to go to a specific arbitrator, and they cannot rule in place of the courts on criminal matters.
What is it you want? No one can have a matter fully resolved without using the British courts? if so who is going to pay for all the extra workload.
cleanbluesky
15-09-2008, 13:40
I'm not sure you understand, you are free to have a matter arbitrated as you see fit, as long as all parties agree to it, this "sharia court" has no special recognition beyond any other arbitration panel, nor any explicit or implicit approval by any government or legal body.
Re-read the article, the judgements can now be enforced - they are 'official' courts.
No one can be compelled to go to a specific arbitrator, and they cannot rule in place of the courts on criminal matters.
What is it you want? No one can have a matter fully resolved without using the British courts? if so who is going to pay for all the extra workload.
You're trying too hard if you think that this thread is arguing against arbitration. I'm arguing against a specific religious doctrine being used in arbitration when we have far more enlightened practices that don't discriminate against women.
You're going to have to express yourself a bit better than simply stating the obvious.
OK then.
Just because the oldset mosque in the UK is now "corrupt" it doesn't necessarily follow that the arbitration courts using Sharia law will be. still:confused:
cleanbluesky
15-09-2008, 13:45
OK then.
Just because the oldset mosque in the UK is now "corrupt" it doesn't necessarily follow that the arbitration courts using Sharia law will be. still:confused:
No, it shows that the oldest institutions within the UK have become corrupt, although that's not my concern - my concern is that sharia court will continue to be enacted with the institutional prejudice that they pride themselves upon.
You're trying too hard if you think that this thread is arguing against arbitration. I'm arguing against a specific religious doctrine being used in arbitration when we have far more enlightened practices that don't discriminate against women.
There is no compulsion to use them though, and even if you use them you can appeal to a normal court if they rule counter to standard British law.
I happen to agree that Sharia seems lopsided in terms of the genders, but how do you stop it? If the women agree and refuse to appeal the decisions how can you tell between those being oppressed and those who really believe they only deserve half as much?
You perceive a problem with the current situation, seriously, what would you suggest?
AboveTheSalt
15-09-2008, 13:53
The Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't seem to have a major problem with Sharia Courts. As Bam has pointed out Beth Din houses of judgement are already in existence. I believe that the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) is generally seen as being a good thing by many employers and employees.
Sharia Courts would only arbitrate between people consenting to be bound by their arbitration and those people could still have recourse to the British legal system if they were unhappy with the judgement.
Sharia courts are intended to be low budget (i.e. not to rely on expensive lawyers and barristers), to operate on very short timescales (rather than the years that the British courts can take to reach a judgement), the process and the laws of evidence are far more relaxed and they are likely to be less awesome an environment than English courts.
Added to this, they are also likely to help ensure that the local community is more involved in encouraging obedience to the law.
I can quite understand that the British legal profession would not be happy about the idea of Sharia Courts.
cleanbluesky
15-09-2008, 14:08
The Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't seem to have a major problem with Sharia Courts. As Bam has pointed out Beth Din houses of judgement are already in existence. I believe that the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) is generally seen as being a good thing by many employers and employees.
Sharia Courts would only arbitrate between people consenting to be bound by their arbitration and those people could still have recourse to the British legal system if they were unhappy with the judgement.
Their only recourse would be against a judgement considered un-Islamic or not in accordance with sharia or if the tribunal were to overstep its authority. My problem is not with any potential mistake with the implementation of sharia, I believe it would be worse if they were to follow it to the letter.
Sharia courts are intended to be low budget (i.e. not to rely on expensive lawyers and barristers), to operate on very short timescales (rather than the years that the British courts can take to reach a judgement), the process and the laws of evidence are far more relaxed and they are likely to be less awesome an environment than English courts.
... and to provide a mechanism through which to enforce the prejudicial laws of Islam.
There is also a concern of 'consent' amongst female participants in the court - given the feature of violence against women amongst Muslim communities within the UK, what safeguards are in place to ensure that women enter into sharia courts of their own free will?
semi-pro waster
16-09-2008, 14:12
Their only recourse would be against a judgement considered un-Islamic or not in accordance with sharia or if the tribunal were to overstep its authority. My problem is not with any potential mistake with the implementation of sharia, I believe it would be worse if they were to follow it to the letter.
But that would be the same with any other arbitration tribunal, you can appeal to a higher court on a point of procedure or that the law has been incorrectly applied, not on the facts of the case itself. If people want to submit to the authority of a sharia tribunal then why should they not be allowed to?
... and to provide a mechanism through which to enforce the prejudicial laws of Islam.
There is also a concern of 'consent' amongst female participants in the court - given the feature of violence against women amongst Muslim communities within the UK, what safeguards are in place to ensure that women enter into sharia courts of their own free will?
The same safeguards as apply to any other arbitration tribunal instead of the UK court system. I don't think that sharia law is particularly equitable but it isn't my place to say that people cannot choose to submit to it, as has been stated elsewhere it is one thing to attempt to give people equality but you cannot force them to accept it - that simply runs counter to the whole idea.
I have no problem with people submitting themselves to Sharia, Beth Din, ACAS, or any other tribunal, provided it really is consensual among all parties. The fact that Sharia is sexually lopsided is irrelevant - I would expect consenting parties would be aware of this and accept the consequences.
The problem I have is the apparent lack of protection against coercive forces (religious or otherwise). I don't know the law here but what is to stop relatives of those involved forcing submission to Sharia law?
cleanbluesky
16-09-2008, 14:53
But that would be the same with any other arbitration tribunal, you can appeal to a higher court on a point of procedure or that the law has been incorrectly applied, not on the facts of the case itself. If people want to submit to the authority of a sharia tribunal then why should they not be allowed to?
Because the state seems to want to take the tools of inequality away from the population, they shouldn't introduce new ones merely to be falsely deferent to a backward enclave within our borders.
The same safeguards as apply to any other arbitration tribunal instead of the UK court system. I don't think that sharia law is particularly equitable but it isn't my place to say that people cannot choose to submit to it, as has been stated elsewhere it is one thing to attempt to give people equality but you cannot force them to accept it - that simply runs counter to the whole idea.
You can take whatever place you want, you should have the confidence to stand up for what you believe in if you think sharia is unfair.
semi-pro waster
16-09-2008, 15:06
Because the state seems to want to take the tools of inequality away from the population, they shouldn't introduce new ones merely to be falsely deferent to a backward enclave within our borders.
I'd be so much happier it we could get some sort of consensus on these sorts of things, some people complain that the government interfere too much, others that they don't do enough.
Anyway, back to the point. It's arbitration, if people want to submit themselves to the authority of Ronald McDonald and his court of cheeseburgers where all fees are levied in Big Macs then that is up to them; I'll probably think them stupid but if that's the worst accusation I can level at them then it isn't enough for me to try and stop them.
You can take whatever place you want, you should have the confidence to stand up for what you believe in if you think sharia is unfair.
Stating what I think of something is very different to saying that someone can't do something (or forcing their compliance more to the point) just because I disagree with it.
cleanbluesky
16-09-2008, 15:16
I'd be so much happier it we could get some sort of consensus on these sorts of things, some people complain that the government interfere too much, others that they don't do enough.
Anyway, back to the point. It's arbitration, if people want to submit themselves to the authority of Ronald McDonald and his court of cheeseburgers where all fees are levied in Big Macs then that is up to them; I'll probably think them stupid but if that's the worst accusation I can level at them then it isn't enough for me to try and stop them.
No, its not. You're intoxicated on the myth of freedom without recognising the system we live in. Besides, they require the recognition of English society - they are ASKING PERMISSION, which means they have obviously discarded their oportunity for 'choice'...
And its not as if the issue is that simple. They can have all the sharia courts they want, doesn't mean a thing, what they want is a small concession towards Islamic values being enshrined by English institution - small steps, inch by inch... this is a political move as much as it is a legal or religious one
Stating what I think of something is very different to saying that someone can't do something (or forcing their compliance more to the point) just because I disagree with it.
You've delusions of grandeur if you think its your choice. You should simply have more confidence in your opinion, if you think something is bad for others (and indeed society itself) you should feel free to express that.
chumpychops
16-09-2008, 15:17
You've delusions of grandeur
That's rich, coming from someone who clearly considers himself to be the bastard offspring of Freud, Kant and Jung.
Why is it a political move? They're applying a 10-year-old law that has been applied in the same manner by other parts of society. The Times article is somewhat misleading in that is implies that Government has actively promoted or encouraged these new courts, whereas what they'e actually done at most is acquiesced and acknowledged that what has been done falls entirely within the law as it already existed.
There is no special provision for Sharia law. If there were then I might come closer to your point of view, but there isn't.
Do you have a problem with Muslim society in general? Your comments about 'backward enclave' suggests that you might be attempting to disguise an attack on Muslim society in general.
cleanbluesky
16-09-2008, 15:30
Why is it a political move? They're applying a 10-year-old law that has been applied in the same manner by other parts of society. The Times article is somewhat misleading in that is implies that Government has actively promoted or encouraged these new courts, whereas what they'e actually done at most is acquiesced and acknowledged that what has been done falls entirely within the law as it already existed.
There is no special provision for Sharia law. If there were then I might come closer to your point of view, but there isn't.
You'll notice that the article states that the court is official and that the ruling are now enforceable whereas they were not before. It is a politic move because it represents greater accommodation of Islam within the UK.
Do you have a problem with Muslim society in general? Your comments about 'backward enclave' suggests that you might be attempting to disguise an attack on Muslim society in general.
Not a problem, but a quick analysis of Muslim countries shows a general lack of development in most and only amongst the ruling classes in a few. Also, having been to a Muslim country, I understand how they see our society and also the small differences between Islamic values and those in the West. I definitely think ours are better, for many reasons.
semi-pro waster
16-09-2008, 15:31
No, its not. You're intoxicated on the myth of freedom without recognising the system we live in. Besides, they require the recognition of English society - they are ASKING PERMISSION, which means they have obviously discarded their oportunity for 'choice'...
Am I indeed? I'd always assumed freedom within limits to be a good thing, more fool me. Although I'm afraid you've lost me, how have they (I'm assuming you mean Muslims here) discarded their opportunity for choice? If a sharia tribunal is allowed (and it has been) as an arbitration service then I'd say they have a choice.
And its not as if the issue is that simple. They can have all the sharia courts they want, doesn't mean a thing, what they want is a small concession towards Islamic values being enshrined by English institution - small steps, inch by inch... this is a political move as much as it is a legal or religious one
If you say so, I don't see as quite so insidious or conniving but that's just me. What is being asked for is the recognition of arbitration agreements as binding - same as would be for any other arbitration panel, you've essentially formed a contract to abide by the decision laid down for you.
You've delusions of grandeur if you think its your choice. You should simply have more confidence in your opinion, if you think something is bad for others (and indeed society itself) you should feel free to express that.
Why is it not my choice to choose what I have to say? I'd always thought that was one of the nicer things about this country, I can choose what I want to say and be judged on it as appropriate.
I've got enough confidence in my opinions to express them as and where I think appropriate but I don't see that as meaning I've got to express an opinion on everything. I've usually gone with the view that I'll get my own house in order before telling other people exactly where they are going wrong. Principally because right and wrong is often a matter of perspective, what suits me does not automatically suit everyone else.
cleanbluesky
16-09-2008, 15:34
Am I indeed? I'd always assumed freedom within limits to be a good thing, more fool me. Although I'm afraid you've lost me, how have they (I'm assuming you mean Muslims here) discarded their opportunity for choice? If a sharia tribunal is allowed (and it has been) as an arbitration service then I'd say they have a choice.
Because they (it seems we share an assumption) seek another to validate them.
If you say so, I don't see as quite so insidious or conniving but that's just me. What is being asked for is the recognition of arbitration agreements as binding - same as would be for any other arbitration panel, you've essentially formed a contract to abide by the decision laid down for you.
What has happened is that a foreign political structure has gained recognition within our system.
Why is it not my choice to choose what I have to say? I'd always thought that was one of the nicer things about this country, I can choose what I want to say and be judged on it as appropriate.
I've got enough confidence in my opinions to express them as and where I think appropriate but I don't see that as meaning I've got to express an opinion on everything. I've usually gone with the view that I'll get my own house in order before telling other people exactly where they are going wrong.
Perhaps the lack of pride in your own 'house' is what convince you to seek equality with those that have not earned it.
chumpychops
16-09-2008, 15:35
CBS has a long history of xenophobia dressed up as enlightened criticism.
Scratch away the attempted sophistry and what you end up with is indistinguishable from what would be more commonly experienced at a BNP rally.
cleanbluesky
16-09-2008, 15:37
CBS has a long history of xenophobia dressed up as enlightened criticism.
Scratch away the attempted sophistry and what you end up with is indistinguishable from what would be more commonly experienced at a BNP rally.
DEY TUK UR JABS
CBS is this, CBS is that... look at me, CBS... LOOOOK at meeee....
You'll notice that the article states that the court is official and that the ruling are now enforceable whereas they were not before.
Therein lies the hole in your argument.
Sharia courts could have been enforceable in the UK before, and they could have been enforceable for the past 100 years or so. Jewish Beth Din courts are in the same situation, and their decisions were enforceable.
I'll repeat - there has been no change in law - only a change in how the Sharia courts apply existing law. This has nothing to do with any act of Government as far as I can see.
semi-pro waster
16-09-2008, 15:44
Because they (it seems we share an assumption) seek another to validate them.
So it would appear, there is at least one assumption in common. Surely you should be happy that Muslims are acknowledging the primacy of British law and legislative process. I still don't see how this removes choice, it adds choice if anything.
What has happened is that a foreign political structure has gained recognition within our system.
You see this tolerance as a bad thing, I do not provided British law retains its primacy and I see no immediate danger of this changing. I fear we will always fundamentally disagree on this point.
Perhaps the lack of pride in your own 'house' is what convince you to seek equality with those that have not earned it.
If that is your reading of my comments then so be it. That can be something for you to speculate on as you see fit.
cleanbluesky
16-09-2008, 15:45
Therein lies the hole in your argument.
Sharia courts could have been enforceable in the UK before, and they could have been enforceable for the past 100 years or so. Jewish Beth Din courts are in the same situation, and their decisions were enforceable.
I'll repeat - there has been no change in law - only a change in how the Sharia courts apply existing law. This has nothing to do with any act of Government as far as I can see.
Has anyone said there HAS been a change in the law? Is that where you personally draw the line at realising we've got a problem, or would you have selective attention at that point as well?
Sharia courts have been given a licence to enforce their crooked and biased interpretation of certain legal matters, official censure of sexism is definitely a step backward in this country.
cleanbluesky
16-09-2008, 15:49
So it would appear, there is at least one assumption in common. Surely you should be happy that Muslims are acknowledging the primacy of British law and legislative process. I still don't see how this removes choice, it adds choice if anything.
If they recognised British law they wouldn't need sharia.
You see this tolerance as a bad thing, I do not provided British law retains its primacy and I see no immediate danger of this changing. I fear we will always fundamentally disagree on this point.
Any move that makes sexism more prevalent or seem more legitimate is a bad thing.
If that is your reading of my comments then so be it. That can be something for you to speculate on as you see fit.
I was actually fishing on that comment, but I'd say the stiffness of your lack of reaction confirms it. I think its a common problem and not one that I blame you for, we have grown up in a climate where we are simply not taught to value everything about ourselves. It makes us more easily controllable by authority in my opinion, and more timid in the face of competition.
semi-pro waster
16-09-2008, 16:01
If they recognised British law they wouldn't need sharia.
Primacy of British law, that is the important part. If you want to say that sharia requires to be recognised by British law then it has to be acknowledging subserviency - it doesn't work both ways which is what you seem to be saying with British law is and is not powerful.
Any move that makes sexism more prevalent or seem more legitimate is a bad thing.
And funnily enough I'd agree with you, sexism is a bad thing generally. However if that is what people want then that is up to them, I'm simply not in favour of forcing people to do something if they do not wish to which would include equality.
I was actually fishing on that comment, but I'd say the stiffness of your lack of reaction confirms it. I think its a common problem and not one that I blame you for, we have grown up in a climate where we are simply not taught to value everything about ourselves. It makes us more easily controllable by authority in my opinion, and more timid in the face of competition.
And why do you think I chose not to bite? Perhaps because I recognised it for the lure it clearly was. Very gracious of you not to blame me but, and I mean this in the least offensive way possible, your opinion of me matters very little to me.
Do you actually mean that we should value ourselves over everything or everything above ourselves? The latter is largely socialism and the former more capitalistic to put it in crude terms and the way it is written the second sentence largely conflicts with the first unless you mean we should value ourselves over everything else.
cleanbluesky
16-09-2008, 16:10
Primacy of British law, that is the important part. If you want to say that sharia requires to be recognised by British law then it has to be acknowledging subserviency - it doesn't work both ways which is what you seem to be saying with British law is and is not powerful.
That's an interesting question - it recognises that the British courts have power, but I seriously doubt that a religion would afford 'sovereignty' of law to anyone by God.
And funnily enough I'd agree with you, sexism is a bad thing generally. However if that is what people want then that is up to them, I'm simply not in favour of forcing people to do something if they do not wish to which would include equality.
It is not a question of forcing anyone to do anything, it represents the confidence to take the tools away from people who adopt these attitudes. If that attitude were extended that we shouldn't stop doing people from what they want, even if they want to harm others, we'd have NO law.
And why do you think I chose not to bite? Perhaps because I recognised it for the lure it clearly was. Very gracious of you not to blame me but, and I mean this in the least offensive way possible, your opinion of me matters very little to me.
I hope you're not angry... :)
... but I meant everything I said.
Do you actually mean that we should value ourselves over everything or everything above ourselves? The latter is largely socialism and the former more capitalistic to put it in crude terms and the way it is written the second sentence largely conflicts with the first unless you mean we should value ourselves over everything else.
When it comes to competition we should value ourselves above everything, and also seek to improve.
What I'm actually advocating is recognising attributes that we posses and recognising our hard-earned superiority over others, rather than believing that we should fein an equality with those who do not deserve it.
semi-pro waster
16-09-2008, 17:19
It is not a question of forcing anyone to do anything, it represents the confidence to take the tools away from people who adopt these attitudes. If that attitude were extended that we shouldn't stop doing people from what they want, even if they want to harm others, we'd have NO law.
It's about drawing a line in the sand to use a cliche, I just happen to draw mine in a different place to you.
I hope you're not angry... :)
... but I meant everything I said.
Who has delusions of grandeur now? ;) Don't worry about it for a second, the chances of you successfully making me angry are very slim. As I said before if that is what you want to think of me it is of no consequence to me. :)
When it comes to competition we should value ourselves above everything, and also seek to improve.
What I'm actually advocating is recognising attributes that we posses and recognising our hard-earned superiority over others, rather than believing that we should fein an equality with those who do not deserve it.
Sounds dangerously American posi-speak to me but an interesting point of view irrespective of that.
cleanbluesky
16-09-2008, 17:40
Who has delusions of grandeur now? ;) Don't worry about it for a second, the chances of you successfully making me angry are very slim. As I said before if that is what you want to think of me it is of no consequence to me. :)
Good, you should be yourself.
Sounds dangerously American posi-speak to me but an interesting point of view irrespective of that.
It's more than an interesting point, people consantly judge their own value in relation to others - rarely conciously - cultures should do the same as well. Unless we learn what we prize in ourselves and what we DON'T prize in others - then our progess will be at a standstill
AboveTheSalt
16-09-2008, 18:12
... we should fein an equality ...feign?
Sharia courts have been given a licence to enforce their crooked and biased interpretation of certain legal matters,
If those who accept and/or live by those views want to submit to Sharia courts, then so be it. I wouldn't, and I doubt most non-Muslims would, but why should we restrict giving them their choice provided that it doesn't remove rights from the rest of us?
official censure of sexism is definitely a step backward in this country.
Point accepted as far as I'm personally concerned, but it seems Muslim culture doesn't see it that way. If we're to demand respect of our traditions from them, should we not at least make the effort to reciprocate. Do we have the right to impose our aspirations to equality on them when we can barely achieve them ourselves?
cleanbluesky
16-09-2008, 20:29
If those who accept and/or live by those views want to submit to Sharia courts, then so be it. I wouldn't, and I doubt most non-Muslims would, but why should we restrict giving them their choice provided that it doesn't remove rights from the rest of us?
They have no 'right' to have their view of the law recognised by the state, and this issue is not about choice to practice their law as choice is abstract and cannot be given or taken away from a person. You can limit their options but not their capacity to choose, if they see sharia as such a priority they should go live in the ditch-countries that use it in jurisprudence. The move contravenes our so called 'commitment' to equality.
Point accepted as far as I'm personally concerned, but it seems Muslim culture doesn't see it that way. If we're to demand respect of our traditions from them, should we not at least make the effort to reciprocate. Do we have the right to impose our aspirations to equality on them when we can barely achieve them ourselves?
You've been fed a lie that respect is granted mutually. In my experience they already respect us for our achievements rather than because of our attitudes towards them - that isn't saying that foreign cultures should be treated poorly, we should just recognise our superiority where we hold it and seek to learn in areas that we do not.
Equality is earned, not awarded.
Sharia courts have been given a licence to enforce their crooked and biased interpretation of certain legal matters, official censure of sexism is definitely a step backward in this country.
You keep banging this drum, insisting that Sharia courts are now "official" and their decrees suddenly enforceable.
The article provides no support for its claim of officialdom or a timeframe of when "previously" is in the line "Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced".
The fact remains that no tacit acceptance has been made by anyone regarding Sharia courts beyond those willing to submit themselves to their judgements.
I imagine you are by now fully aware of the situation (having availed yourself of the opsi website and their publication of the act online; http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960023_en_1), but your ego prevents you from admitting your mistake, hence the tirade against others and how they lack conviction in their beliefs.
cleanbluesky
17-09-2008, 12:51
You keep banging this drum, insisting that Sharia courts are now "official" and their decrees suddenly enforceable.
The article provides no support for its claim of officialdom or a timeframe of when "previously" is in the line "Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced".
The fact remains that no tacit acceptance has been made by anyone regarding Sharia courts beyond those willing to submit themselves to their judgements.
I imagine you are by now fully aware of the situation (having availed yourself of the opsi website and their publication of the act online; http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960023_en_1), but your ego prevents you from admitting your mistake, hence the tirade against others and how they lack conviction in their beliefs.
I haven't researched it myself and took the Times article as true on face value. I.e. use of the word official as non-metaphorical and 'enforcable' to mean exactly that. I am not about to check the source of the information as to do so would take hours - since you seem to think that we need to pay specific attention to the legislation, perhaps you'd also like to explain the relevance given that it has already been made clear that the issue is not a change in the law.
I haven't researched it myself and took the Times article as true on face value. I.e. use of the word official as non-metaphorical and 'enforcable' to mean exactly that. I am not about to check the source of the information as to do so would take hours - since you seem to think that we need to pay specific attention to the legislation, perhaps you'd also like to explain the relevance given that it has already been made clear that the issue is not a change in the law.
To be brief it is because of that legislation that the Sharia courts are allowed to be run and that their rulings are enforceable. It also explains their limits and why they do not and cannot supersede British law, eg; a ruling that runs contrary to a point of British law would be grounds to appeal to a normal court. There has been nothing done to make these courts mentioned in the article "official". You could just as easily start your court, say it enforced Sharia law, and as long as you followed the requirements of the legislation you would be just as official, your judgements just as enforceable.
Basically it is the legislation that allows this, there has been no special concession to Muslims at all.
cleanbluesky
17-09-2008, 19:15
To be brief it is because of that legislation that the Sharia courts are allowed to be run and that their rulings are enforceable. It also explains their limits and why they do not and cannot supersede British law, eg; a ruling that runs contrary to a point of British law would be grounds to appeal to a normal court. There has been nothing done to make these courts mentioned in the article "official". You could just as easily start your court, say it enforced Sharia law, and as long as you followed the requirements of the legislation you would be just as official, your judgements just as enforceable.
Basically it is the legislation that allows this, there has been no special concession to Muslims at all.
1) If you're refuting the article, you're going to have to find more details that have already been provided - merely stating claims that contradict the article is of no use unless you can provide a source
2) The question of whether the legislation has existed for a minute, a year or a thousand years isn't something anyone has expressed an issue with
3) The strawmen inferring that anyone has suggested that sharia can supercede British law or that anyone has suggested that there is a 'special concession' to Muslim do nothing to bring the argument forward
Faisal Aqtab Siddiqi, a commercial law barrister and head of Hijaz College, has sat in judgment at a number of the tribunals.
He said it was not the same as unofficial sharia courts reported to be in operation across the country.
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/north-warwickshire-news/2008/09/09/first-uk-sharia-court-up-and-running-in-warwickshire-92746-21708478/
ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.
Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.
Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2008/09/15/revealed-uk%E2%80%99s-first-official-sharia-courts/
These two seem to confirm what I have said.
If you're going to persist in stating that something has changed, yet both refute everyone who comes up with evidence that things haven't changed and also seemingly suggest that you're unwilling to do further research, then perhaps it's time for you to help justify your side of the argument.
Precisely what are you claiming has changed to 'allow' this blot on your belief system to happen? Can you cite some reliable source for this other than that one Times article?
Edit - crossed in the mail. Seems you may have just done this. :)
Edit2 - those two cited articles appear to be re-hashed versions of the original Times article. They don't appear to add anything we didn't already know to this debate. Pray continue. :)
1) If you're refuting the article, you're going to have to find more details that have already been provided - merely stating claims that contradict the article is of no use unless you can provide a source
2) The question of whether the legislation has existed for a minute, a year or a thousand years isn't something anyone has expressed an issue with
3) The strawmen inferring that anyone has suggested that sharia can supercede British law or that anyone has suggested that there is a 'special concession' to Muslim do nothing to bring the argument forward
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/north-warwickshire-news/2008/09/09/first-uk-sharia-court-up-and-running-in-warwickshire-92746-21708478/
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2008/09/15/revealed-uk%E2%80%99s-first-official-sharia-courts/
These two seem to confirm what I have said.
How am I expected to prove that these courts are not "official" in terms of special consideration or recognition? If you read the legislation you will understand how these courts are able to operate, and how these courts claim their officialdom.
There were previously Sharia courts, they could only make advisory rulings against Muslims who went to them. Why? Because despite the existence of the Arbitration Act they did not comply with it. The new courts comply and thus are de facto recognised as "official".
Regarding your two articles, read the first in light of what I've said above and you'll understand it in context. The second is just the Times article being reprinted.
cleanbluesky
17-09-2008, 19:42
There were previously Sharia courts, they could only make advisory rulings against Muslims who went to them. Why? Because despite the existence of the Arbitration Act they did not comply with it. The new courts comply and thus are de facto recognised as "official".
Source?
I think I see what you were getting at earlier, although I think you're still operating on guesswork.
Source? 4th paragraph of the Times article you originally pointed at, spiced with a little common sense.
dirtydog
18-09-2008, 11:57
Missing the SPS yet, CBS? :D
Source?
I think I see what you were getting at earlier, although I think you're still operating on guesswork.
Source for what particularly? I can't find a source to say that there hasn't been a change in the law (proving the negative), the articles quoted give no reference to such a change, and unless you can find such references the only thing we can know is that the Arbitration Act 1996 allows these "courts".
Tbh it is a little shocking to me that it has taken Muslim groups 12 years to realise they were able to do this, and I would agree with you if you are concerned that they may attempt to make rulings that would run contrary to British law, given inherent inequalities in Sharia as I understand it.
However they are only making use of the law that allows all binding arbitration, and the only way to remove these "courts" would be to rescind the Arbitration Act, or modify it to somehow make Sharia based rulings unenforceable (good luck with that).
The issue of community pressure to resolve situations in a particular way is not unique to Muslims, and I am doubtful that removing the "authority" of these "courts" would have any impact in that area.
cleanbluesky
18-09-2008, 13:43
If the case is merely that groups have organised themselves to apply for something that anyone can achieve and that there is no existing policy for the government to deny them - then I'd say the situation was fair, although a review should be considered on the basis of this case. If its the case that sharia courts have been approved by a government body who have the right to turn them down on whim, then I think that these courts are a definite step in the wrong direction.
Either way I don't think we have enough information about the process to confirm it
If the case is merely that groups have organised themselves to apply for something that anyone can achieve and that there is no existing policy for the government to deny them - then I'd say the situation was fair, although a review should be considered on the basis of this case. If its the case that sharia courts have been approved by a government body who have the right to turn them down on whim, then I think that these courts are a definite step in the wrong direction.
Either way I don't think we have enough information about the process to confirm it
According to my reading of the Act you don't need to "apply" for anything to act as an arbitration "court", you just need to follow the mandates of the law regarding process, accountability etc.
Knowing these provisions, and without any information on the contrary, I think it is reasonable to assume the situation is as I, and others, have described.
I haven't read the law, but that's always the way I'd read it. I'm also not sure what a review could accomplish. Barring the courts 'because they practice Sharia' certainly wouldn't go down well. It would also seem that equality legislation doesn't apply - otherwise there would already be sufficient grounds for appealing these rulings.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.