Huh? Sharia Courts.... ?

[fini]

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

I'm sad to say the times - who are usually best for law reporting - have been rather misleading.

If you drill in to the text you'll see

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.

So they're not courts - they're abitration tribunals. Now all sorts of people can form arbitration tribunals so this really isn't strange that a sharia 'courts' been allowed to be an arbitration tribunal. Are you shocked that large business' routinely have in contracts between themselves and other businesses that they will use binding arbitration rather than the courts if it gets that far? It's just the same here, but between individuals. Both Parties have to agree to take part in the process and be bound by any decisions - its entirely voluntary.

 

[jmhduck]

I'm sad to say the times - who are usually best for law reporting - have been rather misleading.

I guess the times is a murdoch paper now.

 

[scorza]

It's arbitration that people can agree to use to settle certain civil disputes if all parties consent. The concept of doing so isn't different to any other court of arbitration really, the levys may be but if you've consented to abide by the ruling of the arbiter then that is not an issue that the wider world should be particularly concerned with. If coercion is used to get people to agree to use these courts then that is obviously an issue, just as it would be for any court where people had to be coerced to use a system outside of a normal courtroom.

So what safeguards are there that people won't be coerced? It's not like the British Muslim community doesn't have a track record of tricking and forcing their women to do things against their will. As has already been shown in this thread, Sharia law discriminates against women (isn't that illegal in this country?), so why would any woman choose to accept a Sharia ruling unless they were coerced?

 

[fini]

Firstly define Sharia law because there are a lot of different interpretations.

Secondly you could say that about all forms of arbitration. How do you stop ANYONE being coerced into agreeing to ANY form of arbitration? How is this form of arbitration any different from any other?

 

[semi-pro waster]

With regard 'there' I just meant an islamic country.

I guess yes it is more traditional to have laws loosely linked to Christian belief although these are slowly being eroded or modernised depending on your political viewpoint.

Also you said people are happy with our country because we are accommodating if so why are people trying blow up innocent citizens?(Note: I am not saying all muslims are extremists!)

Sorry, I did know you meant an Islamic country, I was just leaving it open ended so that any country could be the one in question. Although while we're at it why not ask if we can have British courts (or arbitration since that is the point here) in Columbia, the USA or South Korea for instance?

Tradition is fine but you don't have to dogmatically (no pun intended) stick to it.

If you're asking why extremists are acting like nutters then the question is slightly tautological as far as I'm concerned, the words are largely synoymous to me. Anyone who takes a viewpoint to such a level (hence the name) is someone who logic and reason are beyond.

So what safeguards are there that people won't be coerced? It's not like the British Muslim community doesn't have a track record of tricking and forcing their women to do things against their will. As has already been shown in this thread, Sharia law discriminates against women (isn't that illegal in this country?), so why would any woman choose to accept a Sharia ruling unless they were coerced?

What safeguards are there that anyone won't be coerced into arbitration or into dropping charges in any other legal situation?

A woman may choose to accept sharia law because she believes it to be right as part of her religion and/or culture.

 

[Skull]

Whilst a woman may choose to accept it as part of her culture, she may not. The fact is then that any men involved in the case know they are going to get a better deal and they are likely to pressure for the arbitration. Given the emphasis on male superiority and the likelihood of pressure from those in the family/community who support sharia law, it would be a brave woman who stood up to this.

As an example, the daughter in the inheritance case... was she going to stand up and say 'no, I want to do it UK-stylee because I'll get more' in the face of this sort of pressure?

It just seems that whilst the process may need mutual consent, it's a process which explicitly favours one party, based on gender or whatever, which doesn't seem like a good basis for a court that can be settling civil matters.

 

[scorza]

What safeguards are there that anyone won't be coerced into arbitration

It might have been a problem in the past but now most cultures in this country act as a safeguard. Unfortunately this cannot be said for the British Muslim community.

or into dropping charges in any other legal situation?

We're talking about civil law here, lets not confuse it with criminal law where charges are dropped etc. Having criminal Sharia law in this country is now inevitable imo, but it opens an entirely different can of worms.

A woman may choose to accept sharia law because she believes it to be right as part of her religion and/or culture.

And she may accept it because she's been threatened with an honour killing if she doesn't.

 

[fini]

And she may accept it because she's been threatened with an honour killing if she doesn't.

Now you're just being ridiculously ignorant.

It seems scorza and skull are trying to argue why every other form of arbitration save sharia arbitration are OK is because the muslim community is in some way inherently more coercive than everyone else???

I'd also point out that if someone was coerced then the arbitration panels decision wouldn't be binding.

 

[platypus]

It seems to me that those saying "there's nothing to see" are frightful of the reaction of others when they do pay attention.

And it seems to me that you can selectively quote posts all you want, and continue to ignore the wider issue.

Have the Jews managed a successful coup from their Beth Din?

 

[Dolph]

It might have been a problem in the past but now most cultures in this country act as a safeguard. Unfortunately this cannot be said for the British Muslim community.



We're talking about civil law here, lets not confuse it with criminal law where charges are dropped etc. Having criminal Sharia law in this country is now inevitable imo, but it opens an entirely different can of worms.



And she may accept it because she's been threatened with an honour killing if she doesn't.

Once again, we can only offer people freedom from discrimination and support them if they ask for assistance.

We can't force them to not accept discrimination if they don't want to.

 

[jmhduck]

And she may accept it because she's been threatened with an honour killing if she doesn't.

That is taking it a bit too far dude .

 

[scorza]

Now you're just being ridiculously ignorant.

It seems scorza and skull are trying to argue why every other form of arbitration save sharia arbitration are OK is because the muslim community is in some way inherently more coercive than everyone else???

I'd also point out that if someone was coerced then the arbitration panels decision wouldn't be binding.

Sounds to me like you're the ignorant one, bury your head in the sand and pretend there's no problems with this at all. I'm just commentating based on what I've seen in the press, e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7290564.stm

What's forced marriage if not coercive?

 

[semi-pro waster]

It might have been a problem in the past but now most cultures in this country act as a safeguard. Unfortunately this cannot be said for the British Muslim community.

It reads rather as if your objections to Islam and the British Muslim community are more of an issue than concern for adequate safeguards. The point being that the same level of legal safeguards are available to all, whether they choose to avail themselves of them is a different issue. It might be tragic if they don't but it isn't up to others to force them to do so - coercion to guard against coercion is a delightful irony, no?

We're talking about civil law here, lets not confuse it with criminal law where charges are dropped etc. Having criminal Sharia law in this country is now inevitable imo, but it opens an entirely different can of worms.

Sorry, I'm not confusing the two but if you'd prefer then I'll rephrase. What about civil law cases that are dropped with coercion? Exactly the same legal safeguards are present.

And she may accept it because she's been threatened with an honour killing if she doesn't.

It's possible but you asked for a reason why someone may accept something that is prejudicial to them. I gave you a reason. If you want to take it to worst case scenarios then sure, someone might be killed for refusing to do what another wants - prove to me that is exclusive to Muslim culture and you'll have the point.

 

[cleanbluesky]

Have the Jews managed a successful coup from their Beth Din?

No, neither have Mormons established a 'Mormon state' in Middle Eastern countries

 

[Skull]

Now you're just being ridiculously ignorant.

It seems scorza and skull are trying to argue why every other form of arbitration save sharia arbitration are OK is because the muslim community is in some way inherently more coercive than everyone else???

I'd also point out that if someone was coerced then the arbitration panels decision wouldn't be binding.

No it's because the arbitration is inherently biased and unfair, not because the muslim community is specifically more coercive than everyone else.

 

[fini]

Sounds to me like you're the ignorant one, bury your head in the sand and pretend there's no problems with this at all. I'm just commentating based on what I've seen in the press, e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...ds/7290564.stm

What's forced marriage if not coercive?

Did you even read that link you posted? It first says that there could be as little as 300 forced marriages a year - which out of a population of 60 million is ridiculously small. More importantly the article does not make a single reference to Muslims - so how is it connected to what we're talking about at all?

No it's because the arbitration is inherently biased and unfair, not because the muslim community is specifically more coercive than everyone else.

And other forms of arbitration are not? Why is it specifically this form of arbitration you have a problem with? Does it matter if you think the arbitration's biased if the two parties agree to go in to - surely it's nobodies business, but theres? I'd also dispute the idea that Sharia is inherently anti-women. In many ways Sharia is biased towards women - for example unlike UK law it allows prenups, which, in Muslim marriages always means the woman gets a metric ton of cash.

 

[CaptainComedy]

Im sorry but this (and the jewish courts) is plain STUPID.

A court and its judge is supposed to use logic, common sense, do whats right humanely and be an unbiased answer to a situation.

how the hell can a judge who praises a god give an unbiased view when sharia law completely outcasts the female population!?

Woman: "He beat me uncontious"
Man: "Yeah she wouldnt do the dishes!"
Judge: "Should do what your man tells you! Your god demands it!"

and what woman would go to a sharia law court? the very laws that gave the man the idea he could beat her up in the first place!? does she get to choose the court or not?!

I mean Im sorry I would rather get spock in than some brainwashed idiot. That goes to any judge thats religious including the christians!

 

[cleanbluesky]

It's possible but you asked for a reason why someone may accept something that is prejudicial to them. I gave you a reason. If you want to take it to worst case scenarios then sure, someone might be killed for refusing to do what another wants - prove to me that is exclusive to Muslim culture and you'll have the point.

It represents a constant danger given the way in which women are seen within Islamic society - it is not a case of one person killing another due to individual differences, there is an institutional prejudice against women ingrained within Islam.

Therefore, a believing woman would cover herself for Allah's sake. She would fast, pray, not leave the house without her guardian's permission, engage in politics and account the rulers, refraining from prohibited acts such as bribery and fornication, all for the sake of Allah.

There are countries that provide horrific examples of this, Afghanistan chiefly where women would be beaten for appearing in public alone or laughing in public.

 

[CaptainComedy]

It represents a constant danger given the way in which women are seen within Islamic society - it is not a case of one person killing another due to individual differences, there is an institutional prejudice against women ingrained within Islam.



There are countries that provide horrific examples of this, Afghanistan chiefly where women would be beaten for appearing in public alone or laughing in public.

also we've had women killed here for marrying men not permitted by the family

 

[jmhduck]

Im sorry but this (and the jewish courts) is plain STUPID.

A court and its judge is supposed to use logic, common sense, do whats right humanely and be an unbiased answer to a situation.

how the hell can a judge who praises a god give an unbiased view when sharia law completely outcasts the female population!?

Woman: "He beat me uncontious"
Man: "Yeah she wouldnt do the dishes!"
Judge: "Should do what your man tells you! Your god demands it!"

and what woman would go to a sharia law court? the very laws that gave the man the idea he could beat her up in the first place!? does she get to choose the court or not?!

I mean Im sorry I would rather get spock in than some brainwashed idiot. That goes to any judge thats religious including the christians!

So you pretty much hate everyone who is religous .