Islam and English law..

[L00b]

Where Sharia law is implemented in contradiction to British law, what is its legal strength?

 

Let's say I decide to ask a sharia court to chop the bits of my baby-daughter and they say yes. Am I then immune from prosecution for FGM?

 

You know the answer, your arguments are hollow and uninformed but wrap well into a soundbite that appeals to those that like to point fingers so they can feel better themselves.

Much as I (most-) frequently agree with you and, equally frequently, take issue with (some, not all of-) Zamo's anti-Islam arguments...

 

...there is a developing problem which, at least empirically, I would say is developing hand-in-hand/in parallel with long-term, 'softer' radicalisation (and yes, I am aware of the bias of the source - it does not detract from the value and relevance of personal testimonies).

 

If, for your one or two example high-visibility FGM (or similarly reprehensible) cases, there is 10 to 15 actual and unheard-of 'Sharia divorce-repealing interventionism', eventually Sharia ends up getting 'the upper hand' on the British judiciary more frequently than not.

 

It's as pernicious as the ever increasing number of burkhas and other proselyte manifestations. And should be quashed by reason of same.

Edited August 22, 2016 by L00b

[unbeliever]

I would like to see religious institutions prevented from arbitrating when it is know they promote discrimination. Sharia openly discriminates based on gender, sexual orientation and religious choice - which are supposed to be protected characteristics under English law - and is therefore not an acceptable basis for any sort of arbitration in this country.

 

If any of the groups you list were providing arbitration services tainted by discrimination then you would expect some sort of intervention to stop it. But not so when it come to Sharia courts... why the double standard?

 

---------- Post added 22-08-2016 at 14:54 ----------

 

 

In my first post I start by saying the Sharia law does not supplant British law. If a Sharia court made a ruling that was subsequently challenged in our courts then it would have no legal strength over our laws. But the reality is there is not generally a challenge in our courts and the discrimination endorsed and encourage by Sharia goes on. It should be condemned and stopped.

 

 

You're completely abandoning religious freedom in order to protect secular morality. Whilst I base my own decisions on secular morality, I'm not ready to go as far as you suggest in imposing it on the religious.

Would you consider, as a compromise, an extensive legal inspection and oversight system for religious arbitration "courts", to ensure that everybody is participating voluntarily and understands that such courts are advisory and non-binding.

 

---------- Post added 22-08-2016 at 15:10 ----------

 

Much as I (most-) frequently agree with you and, equally frequently, take issue with (some, not all of-) Zamo's anti-Islam arguments...

 

...there is a developing problem which, at least empirically, I would say is developing hand-in-hand/in parallel with long-term, 'softer' radicalisation.

 

If, for your one or two example high-visibility FGM (or similarly reprehensible) cases, there is 10 to 15 actual and unheard-of 'Sharia divorce-repealing interventionism', eventually Sharia ends up getting 'the upper hand' on the British judiciary more frequently than not.

 

It's as pernicious as the ever increasing number of burkhas and other proselyte manifestations. And should be quashed by reason of same.

 

 

We are not a constitutionally secular state. This means that we sometimes put religious freedom ahead of secular morality when other western states would do otherwise.

I say this as a devoted secularist. This is not the constitution I would have chosen, but it is not up to me.

[L00b]

We are not a constitutionally secular state.

Indeed, technically the UK is a Christian parliamentary monarchy

This means that we sometimes put religious freedom ahead of secular morality when other western states would do otherwise.

Religious freedom does not, by definition, extend to judiciary choice unless that judiciary draws its powers from a theological foundation for the state, such as Courts of Islamic republics and the like (to stay in the thread context).

 

'Parallel' judiciaries with a theological foundation and ambit should certainly never trump, or even be seen to trump, a country's bona fide judiciary, as regrettably appears to be the case from the testimonies which I linked.

 

And should be made to regret any such meddling (as and when it occurs and can be proven of course) quite bitterly, with relevant and non-trivial sanctions on the sitting 'judges'.

 

There are several important reason the whole of the (proper) legal profession is very tightly regulated in this country, the most important of which is the public's interest. Non-secular state or not, I fail to see why parallel judiciaries and their members should be exempted from these regulations, professional standards, and the penalties that go hand-in-hand with their no-adherence or disrespect.

 

But in perhaps simpler terms. I support the burkha ban. Under the same rationale, I would support partial (balancing-) secularisation of Sharia courts, together with their professionalization.

Edited August 22, 2016 by L00b

[unbeliever]

Indeed, technically the UK is a Christian parliamentary monarchy

Religious freedom does not, by definition, extend to judiciary choice unless that judiciary draws its powers from a theological foundation for the state, such as Courts of Islamic republics and the like (to stay in the thread context).

 

'Parallel' judiciaries with a theological foundation and ambit should certainly never trump, or even be seen to trump, a country's bona fide judiciary, as regrettably appears to be the case from the testimonies which I linked.

 

And should be made to regret any such meddling (as and when it occurs and can be proven of course) quite bitterly, with relevant and non-trivial sanctions on the sitting 'judges'.

 

There are several important reason the whole of the (proper) legal profession is very tightly regulated in this country, the most important of which is the public's interest. Non-secular state or not, I fail to see why parallel judiciaries and their members should be exempted from these regulations, professional standards, and the penalties that go hand-in-hand with their disrespect.

 

Like it or not, religious law is important to the faithful and in organised religion there have always been religious rulings.

 

Would you consider, as a compromise, an extensive legal inspection and oversight system for religious arbitration "courts", to ensure that everybody is participating voluntarily and understands that such courts are advisory and non-binding.

[Cyclone]

I would like to see religious institutions prevented from arbitrating when it is know they promote discrimination. Sharia openly discriminates based on gender, sexual orientation and religious choice - which are supposed to be protected characteristics under English law - and is therefore not an acceptable basis for any sort of arbitration in this country.

 

If any of the groups you list were providing arbitration services tainted by discrimination then you would expect some sort of intervention to stop it. But not so when it come to Sharia courts... why the double standard?

Arbitration is a voluntary civil process, which all parties agree to enter into.

How can you stop it... If you tried to stop it, it would just become informal and no longer be open to monitoring.

I get that you don't like Islam, we all get it. But you can't magically stop people from working things out on their own if they choose to.

In my first post I start by saying the Sharia law does not supplant British law. If a Sharia court made a ruling that was subsequently challenged in our courts then it would have no legal strength over our laws. But the reality is there is not generally a challenge in our courts and the discrimination endorsed and encourage by Sharia goes on. It should be condemned and stopped.

How? You've full of what should be done, but lite on the details of how.

[L00b]

Like it or not, religious law is important to the faithful and in organised religion there have always been religious rulings.

When were Sharia arbitration Courts introduced in the UK?

 

Hint: centuries after Muslims took up residence in the UK. Same principles applies to Judaism and beth din courts <etc.>

Would you consider, as a compromise, an extensive legal inspection and oversight system for religious arbitration "courts", to ensure that everybody is participating voluntarily and understands that such courts are advisory and non-binding.

Not unless each religious community funds the inspection and system. Entirely.

 

If it is the wish of such communities to be arbitrated under their theocratic principles rather than the primary law of the land, they can pay both for it (if they don't already) and to ensure that decisions still toe all fundamental principles of the primary law of the land.

 

And in the alternative, no weight nor any recognition to any decision handed by such arbitration courts. Whatsoever.

Arbitration is a voluntary civil process, which all parties agree to enter into.

How can you stop it... If you tried to stop it, it would just become informal and no longer be open to monitoring.

I get that you don't like Islam, we all get it. But you can't magically stop people from working things out on their own if they choose to.

That's the fundamental problem where those "less equal than others" in Islam are concerned.

 

For them at least, not much is done to ensure that their choice to enter into such arbitration is free indeed. And once they're in, the (same) theocratic 'principles' that govern the eventual decision do the rest.

 

I'm not talking about business or property disputes, obviously enough.

Edited August 22, 2016 by L00b

[unbeliever]

Arbitration is a voluntary civil process, which all parties agree to enter into.

How can you stop it... If you tried to stop it, it would just become informal and no longer be open to monitoring.

I get that you don't like Islam, we all get it. But you can't magically stop people from working things out on their own if they choose to.

How? You've full of what should be done, but lite on the details of how.

 

I think we're in general agreement here, but they do have a point.

We defend religious freedom because it's one of several important liberties we value. But religion tends to be intolerant. So there's a balance to be struck.

 

---------- Post added 22-08-2016 at 15:39 ----------

 

When were Sharia arbitration Courts introduced in the UK?

 

What's the difference between those and rulings by, for example, the Roman Catholic church. It's all non-state law with arbitrators, to which people voluntarily subject themselves. Have I missed a crucial detail defining a difference?

 

---------- Post added 22-08-2016 at 15:40 ----------

 

Not unless each religious community funds the inspection and system. Entirely.

 

If it is the wish of such communities to be arbitrated under their theocratic principles rather than the primary law of the land, they can pay both for it (if they don't already) and to ensure that decisions still toe all fundamental principles of the primary law of the land.

 

And in the alternative, no weight nor any recognition to any decision handed by such arbitration courts. Whatsoever.

 

So freedom must be free?

[L00b]

What's the difference between those and rulings by, for example, the Roman Catholic church.

Can you point me to a Roman Catholic court or arbitration centre in the UK?

 

On balance, do their decisions exhibit the same degree of misogynistic hegemony as Muslim ones?

It's all non-state law with arbitrators, to which people voluntarily subject themselves. Have I missed a crucial detail defining a difference?

Yes, the historical (and arguably still current) degree of 'freedom' of those "less equal than others" in male-dominated theocratic communities. The sort of communities who do not recognise a divorce ruling by a bona fide British Court.

So freedom must be free?

Eh?

[tzijlstra]

Much as I (most-) frequently agree with you and, equally frequently, take issue with (some, not all of-) Zamo's anti-Islam arguments...

 

...there is a developing problem which, at least empirically, I would say is developing hand-in-hand/in parallel with long-term, 'softer' radicalisation (and yes, I am aware of the bias of the source - it does not detract from the value and relevance of personal testimonies).

 

If, for your one or two example high-visibility FGM (or similarly reprehensible) cases, there is 10 to 15 actual and unheard-of 'Sharia divorce-repealing interventionism', eventually Sharia ends up getting 'the upper hand' on the British judiciary more frequently than not.

 

It's as pernicious as the ever increasing number of burkhas and other proselyte manifestations. And should be quashed by reason of same.

 

Firstly - my point is that Sharia law has no legal basis what so ever, we can debate it until we weigh an ounce, but if you show up at a British court and say - but the Sharia said so? you get laughed away. Rightfully so too.

 

Secondly, I don't believe there is a 'developing problem' in fact, I believe quite the opposite. Because things are increasingly transparent due to the way society is developing we witness more of it, that does not mean it did not happen before. It is the familiar 'increased reporting' conundrum. Just because Jimmy Savile was never tackled way back when, does not mean that it didn't happen, if you see my point.

 

The only way to pull muslims who are swayed towards preferring sharia over proper courts is by educating them.

[tinfoilhat]

I think we're in general agreement here, but they do have a point.

We defend religious freedom because it's one of several important liberties we value. But religion tends to be intolerant. So there's a balance to be struck.

 

---------- Post added 22-08-2016 at 15:39 ----------

 

 

What's the difference between those and rulings by, for example, the Roman Catholic church. It's all non-state law with arbitrators, to which people voluntarily subject themselves. Have I missed a crucial detail defining a difference?

 

---------- Post added 22-08-2016 at 15:40 ----------

 

 

So freedom must be free?

 

Freedom costs a buck o five.

 

---------- Post added 22-08-2016 at 15:51 ----------

 

.

 

The only way to pull muslims who are swayed towards preferring sharia over proper courts is by educating them.

 

So muslims are stupid? That's not very nice!