Huh? Sharia Courts.... ?

[cleanbluesky]

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

It seems contradictory to me that people can support unrestricted spread of Islam becasue of 'equality' when there are so many obvious examples of inequality within Muslim communities

 

[jmhduck]

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

I'm sorry but I just don't see what's funny about that .

 

[scorza]

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?

Did you read the link? 300 reported cases in Luton alone, and over 2000 missing schoolchildren across the UK. And come on - Luton isn't exactly infamous for its large Jewish community is it?

 

[semi-pro waster]

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.

So your problem isn't with the idea of Islamic arbitration as much as it is with Islam itself then. If people choose to follow the religion and choose to abide by the rules it lays out that is up to them, provided those rules do not run counter to the law of the UK.

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.

We are not in Afghanistan, that sort of behaviour is not legal here and a civil arbitration service would not be permitted to administer such punishments so I'm not positive of the relevance.

 

[CaptainComedy]

So you pretty much hate everyone who is religous .

no I hate legal systems that DONT use a logical and ethical approach and rather use a system which favours A BOOK!

I'm sorry but I just don't see what's funny about that .

what makes you think I was joking? it was a statement of which actually happened - or do you think I thought it funny because I did : p

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.

What he really means is that the women withdrew because they knew the man wasnt going to be punished and can go back home the same evening and beat the **** out of the woman for taking it to sharia court in the first place.

 

[cleanbluesky]

So your problem isn't with the idea of Islamic arbitration as much as it is with Islam itself then. If people choose to follow the religion and choose to abide by the rules it lays out that is up to them, provided those rules do not run counter to the law of the UK.

My problem is anything that causes conflict, inequality can be one of those things.

We are not in Afghanistan, that sort of behaviour is not legal here and a civil arbitration service would not be permitted to administer such punishments so I'm not positive of the relevance.

Afghanistan has been through many changes, and at one time was a liberal and prosperous nation. If the KKK wanted to have a civil court, I'd be against it - it offers nothing to the UK and whilst their meaner practices would be illegal I believe that nothing associated with their 'justice' should be legitimised.

 

[jmhduck]

no I hate legal systems that DONT use a logical and ethical approach and rather use a system which favours A BOOK!

what makes you think I was joking? it was a statement of which actually happened - or do you think I thought it funny because I did : p

I agree with a logical and ethical approach as well, although many of our rules and laws are probably written in books as well.

I didn't think you were joking, I just don't see what's funny about people getting killed.

 

[CaptainComedy]

I agree with a logical and ethical approach as well, although many of our rules and laws are probably written in books as well.

I didn't think you were joking, I just don't see what's funny about people getting killed.

yes but those books werent designed to be a story. They were actually made to be laws and were edited over time to be improved - sharia law? no no no.

 

[Dolph]

yes but those books werent designed to be a story. They were actually made to be laws and were edited over time to be improved - sharia law? no no no.

You do realise a huge number of our laws have their roots in christanity?

 

[jmhduck]

yes but those books werent designed to be a story. They were actually made to be laws and were edited over time to be improved - sharia law? no no no.

You do also realise that not all of religous books are *just* stories some books of the bible are only about the laws of Judaism (ie no David and Goliath or floods etc) sounds to me that you don't know what you're talking about .

 

[CaptainComedy]

You do realise a huge number of our laws have their roots in christanity?

Yes and most have been changed - those base laws were made a LONG time ago, and thankfully our judicial system realised the need to change and be seperate from christianity even christianity itself has changed a lot since then. sharia law on the other hand hasnt. Which is the defining problem here. Its old fashioned and traditional and by that I mean that its not an equal law between men and women.

Reminds me of that film where men and women split into 2 seperate races and went to war - I forget the film but was an interesting take on what might have happened if men never gave women equality during their revolt or what ever you call it...

 

[jmhduck]

Reminds me of that film where men and women split into 2 seperate races and went to war - I forget the film but was an interesting take on what might have happened if men never gave women equality during their revolt or what ever you call it...

What would happen there is that within 130 years everyone would be dead anyway as there'd be no reproduction .

 

[Dolph]

Yes and most have been changed - those base laws were made a LONG time ago, and thankfully our judicial system realised the need to change and be seperate from christianity even christianity itself has changed a lot since then. sharia law on the other hand hasnt. Which is the defining problem here. Its old fashioned and traditional and by that I mean that its not an equal law between men and women.

Which would be bad if it was compulsory, but it's not. It's an arbitration system that can only be used if both parties consent to doing so. My only concern would be in ensuring that the consent was informed, that is, all parties understand the criteria and rules used by the arbitration panel. But that applies to all arbitration, not just Sharia arbitration.

Reminds me of that film where men and women split into 2 seperate races and went to war - I forget the film but was an interesting take on what might have happened if men never gave women equality during their revolt or what ever you call it...

Women in the UK have equality under law already. But we can't force people to take it if they don't want to. As said, a law that coerces people to avoid risk of coercion seems a little backwards.

It's important that we ensure people can be protected from discrimination, which we do. Forcing protection against discrimination on people who don't want it is a totally different thing.

 

[semi-pro waster]

My problem is anything that causes conflict, inequality can be one of those things.

Causes conflict in what sense? If you do genuinely have a problem with anything and everything that causes conflict of any sort then you've got a near permanant issue since so much of the World is predicated on conflict. I would wish you every success in resolving all conflict and mean it but be careful that you don't replace it with something even worse - if the choice is between a World with conflict where I can exercise freedoms or a World with peace but no real freedoms then I'll take conflict each and every time.

Afghanistan has been through many changes, and at one time was a liberal and prosperous nation. If the KKK wanted to have a civil court, I'd be against it - it offers nothing to the UK and whilst their meaner practices would be illegal I believe that nothing associated with their 'justice' should be legitimised.

If you want to give people freedom of choice then you've got to accept that they may make choices that you don't agree with or see as prejudicial to their best interests.

 

[CaptainComedy]

Which would be bad if it was compulsory, but it's not. It's an arbitration system that can only be used if both parties consent to doing so. My only concern would be in ensuring that the consent was informed, that is, all parties understand the criteria and rules used by the arbitration panel. But that applies to all arbitration, not just Sharia arbitration.

yes and one comment from the op's link

"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."

which to me sounds like the sharia courts is failing women miserably. Marriage counciling and no punishment? WTF!?

Women in the UK have equality under law already. But we can't force people to take it if they don't want to. As said, a law that coerces people to avoid risk of coercion seems a little backwards.

The law isnt there as a choice its simply there and if its broken those that break it get punished. You choose to break the law not obide by it - its still there regardless.

It's important that we ensure people can be protected from discrimination, which we do. Forcing protection against discrimination on people who don't want it is a totally different thing.

The problem here is I want to know how many women asked for this sharia court to be set up. Would I be wrong to assume it was a majority of men?

and where did they find the judges for that? any women judges in that area? some minor figures I would like to know.

 

[Dolph]

yes and one comment from the op's link

"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."

which to me sounds like the sharia courts is failing women miserably. Marriage counciling and no punishment? WTF!?

I personally agree with you, and would recommend to anyone who came to me for advice that they don't follow this path to try and get it resolved. However, just because I disagree with their choice because I disagree with their outcome, I will not interfere with their right to make that choice in the first place. Freedom of choice has to include the freedom to make bad choices, otherwise there's no freedom at all.

The law isnt there as a choice its simply there and if its broken those that break it get punished. You choose to break the law not obide by it - its still there regardless.

But in civil cases, it only matters if one party complains. This is not criminal law stuff, the arbitration panels are strictly limited to civil stuff only. You are protected by all manner of civil laws, but you have to complain to kick that protection in, and you can choose how it is resolved. This is the way it's always been, mediation and arbitration have been available to conflicting parties for a very long time within the UK legal system. This really is nothing new.

The problem here is I want to know how many women asked for this sharia court to be set up. Would I be wrong to assume it was a majority of men?

Probably not, but remember, in this country, no-one has to enter arbitration, they can simply refuse and let the standard UK courts deal with it under standard protocols. If people choose a route that differs from that, who are we to stop them?

and where did they find the judges for that? any women judges in that area? some minor figures I would like to know.

I'd doubt it,the judges are likely to be community elders or religious figures or similar (as they are with the Beth Din). But again, these arbitration panels (they aren't courts and it's fundamentally misleading to call them that, which is why I'm surprised the Times has done it) are entirely voluntary.

 

[CaptainComedy]

I personally agree with you, and would recommend to anyone who came to me for advice that they don't follow this path to try and get it resolved. However, just because I disagree with their choice because I disagree with their outcome, I will not interfere with their right to make that choice in the first place. Freedom of choice has to include the freedom to make bad choices, otherwise there's no freedom at all.

The problem here is giving them the choice of sharia law is like giving Adam the choice to eat forbidden fruit - chances are one women will try it and will only get a bad outcome of it, you could say "its only one person" but it shouldnt be like that, No punishment on the man, no equality, so what woman (with knowledge of how the sharia system works) would choose a biased judiciary over an equal one?

I know the UK law isnt perfect, but I look at sharia law and think "DAMN thats the most idiotic system I have ever seen" I mean honestly - Spock really would be able to write more equal laws than sharia law. Heck this guy could

Foghorn Leghorn

 

[pitchfork]

Tbh I don't condone any kind of court which is based on another country or religion of any kind. This is england and not everyone is religious. A country has its own laws.
So not many courts I do condone really, especially not this day and age.

 

[CaptainComedy]

Tbh I don't condone any kind of court which is based on another country or religion of any kind. This is the UK and not everyone is religious. A country has its own laws.
So not many courts I do condone really, especially not this day and age.

Corrected

 

[cleanbluesky]

If you want to give people freedom of choice then you've got to accept that they may make choices that you don't agree with or see as prejudicial to their best interests.

Freedom of choice is an abstract philosophical idea, and is not 'given' by anyone to anyone else. Autonomy is not a right, we live in a country dictated by rules and law - this set of laws should not be supported or legitimised.