Sharia courts in the UK

[bam]

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

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]

Originally Posted by bam

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.

[Fayshun]

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

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

[cleanbluesky]

Originally Posted by Fayshun

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

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.

[bam]

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

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]

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]

Originally Posted by AboveTheSalt

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]

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

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?

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

... 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.

[Mark]

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]

Originally Posted by semi-pro waster

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.