Sharia courts operating in Britain

Originally posted by inimalist
so nobody is concerned with the extra-judicial patriarchy in Muslim communities?

we all agree that letting immigrant groups become more insular is going to encourage an end to, say, forced marriage, honor killings and female circumcision?

I think to say that it would encourage such things would be going a bit far. I think the fact we have to remember is that this doesn't change or alter any current laws, at all - so to not allow it would be actively discriminating against a religious group.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I think to say that it would encourage such things would be going a bit far.

You sure about that?

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
You sure about that?

The actual system itself, yes. If it is abused and such things happen, then it becomes a case of infringing on the actual law.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
The actual system itself, yes. If it is abused and such things happen, then it becomes a case of infringing on the actual law.

Maybe, but im wondering were it will end im sure some people can still twist things around even if it does infringe on actual law.

Originally posted by inimalist
so nobody is concerned with the extra-judicial patriarchy in Muslim communities?

we all agree that letting immigrant groups become more insular is going to encourage an end to, say, forced marriage, honor killings and female circumcision?

But to deliberately EXCLUDE immigrant groups from a right everyone else enjoys is going to bring about such insularism much more quickly.

Everyone in this country has the right to bring certain matters to arbitration by a third party so long as those involved all agree the decision is binding, and so long as the arbitration panel follows UK law. Christians, Jews, Hindus, Atheists and for that matter gnome worshippers all have the right to such arbittation handled by a third party who believes in their values, if one can be found. Who the hell are we to specifically deny that right to Muslims?

Calling this a 'sharia court' is the thing that brings over the top responses. All it actually is is certain arbitration matters being decided on commonly agreed values amongst those concerned which happens to be those that conform to a certain Muslim belief. You cannot condemn that and not condemn any other form of arbitration.

Originally posted by inimalist
so nobody is concerned with the extra-judicial patriarchy in Muslim communities?

we all agree that letting immigrant groups become more insular is going to encourage an end to, say, forced marriage, honor killings and female circumcision?

Well, I at least agree that if they want to make their own private arbitration. I don't really believe in forcing people to adopt values.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I think to say that it would encourage such things would be going a bit far.

unfortunately, these acts do not need to be encouraged

even with regard to something like castes (obviously not an Islamic thing, but the idea holds), some Hindu from the "untouchable" castes find that they face more social isolation and discrimination in the UK after immigration than before.

social problems and repression in the Muslim community are not going to be addressed by a system run by the same elders who enforce the patriarchy outside of the courts. Its not that these rates would rise (though it could be argued) just that, people being affected are going to have less and less power to speak out against it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But to deliberately EXCLUDE immigrant groups from a right everyone else enjoys is going to bring about such insularism much more quickly.

I think you missed my point. This system will further entrench the power of the patriarchy within the communities.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have the right, I think everyone is missing a bigger picture. Women and girls in immigrant communities have enough trouble as it is reaching out for help, there are countless stories of honor killings and female circumcision from all Western countries, everyone knows stories of forced marriage. Women in these communities already face problems from lack of language skills and not being financially independent. I'm saying an effect of the law, not anything to do with the law itself, has the potential of removing what might have been one of the only available outlets for fighting back against these forces. Not that they can't still go to the british courts, but that they may be devout muslims (re: they want to settle things according to Sharia, even if it means a culture of oppression) or they may be seen as "their" courts, and not courts for Muslims.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I at least agree that if they want to make their own private arbitration. I don't really believe in forcing people to adopt values.

certainly not. I don't remember saying that people should be allowed to arbitrate.

The problem is that there are Muslim community leaders who force harmful values onto their communities. Values that those within the community beg for the rest of society to pay attention to. Muslim groups all across America are just waiting for people to start paying attention to their message of reform. Yet, most people just want to see radicals talk about blowing up America and burning Israeli flags.

Taking away the civil courts, even if indirectly (or even just making them look less "Islamic", a good propaganda tool), makes it that much harder for these groups to be heard in all the other noise that seems to sell media much better

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think the resources of the UK law system should be wasted on that whether both parties agreed or not.

I think it's quite alright as a private court system though...as long as everyone is still protected by the actual laws.

The only problem I see is that the full power of the UK legal system is enforcing the rulings of a different legal system. Which seems wasteful and potentially very counterproductive.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The only problem I see is that the full power of the UK legal system is enforcing the rulings of a different legal system. Which seems wasteful and potentially very counterproductive.

Yeah, that's what I thought first, but I don't believe that's the case.

Probably because that's most definitely not the case.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think you missed my point.

No, though I do think you missed mine.

If you do not llike community empowerment, fine, but you cannot expect all communities to have the same views as you on arbitrating matters such as divorce and inheritance.

By all means provide education so that people don't want to accept outmoded beliefs and hence would reject arbitrators that want to use such beliefs. Arbitration has to be fully agreed by all parties involved.

But banning the people the right to use those beliefs will simply cause the alienation and insular nature you worry about. You cannot simply try and legilslate away the way people feel, and you cannot selectively apply which beliefs do or do not count when it comes to people selecting an arbitrator. So long as the arbitration process follows UK law then it is absurd to deny it to a particular community section.

You have a possibly justified worry that some people might get trapped in a community and unable to advocate for themselves. Banning the rights of some to apply their beliefs to arbitration is NOT the answer to that issue; it would be a greater sin.

It is not a problem now, since it marely solves marriage disputes.

The problem will arise if and when Muslims adherents start asking for Sharia to be their court for all matters, criminal and civil.

That then means stoning to death for a murder and chopping of hands for theft. And this WILL clash with the laws of United Kingdom.

If its operating on the level it is operating now, I don't see why people who use the Sharia courts would not eventually want criminal and other disputes solved this way.

Once every minority starts demanding the same, the superiroty of UK law will soon become invalid.

One law for everyone. No exceptions.

They may want it, but they won't get it.

What with your increasingly hysterical and biased view of...everything, you ought to think about a career in journalism, writing for The Sun.

ermm

Originally posted by lord xyz
ermm

Please explain, I don't get it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, though I do think you missed mine.

If you do not llike community empowerment, fine, but you cannot expect all communities to have the same views as you on arbitrating matters such as divorce and inheritance.

By all means provide education so that people don't want to accept outmoded beliefs and hence would reject arbitrators that want to use such beliefs. Arbitration has to be fully agreed by all parties involved.

But banning the people the right to use those beliefs will simply cause the alienation and insular nature you worry about. You cannot simply try and legilslate away the way people feel, and you cannot selectively apply which beliefs do or do not count when it comes to people selecting an arbitrator. So long as the arbitration process follows UK law then it is absurd to deny it to a particular community section.

You have a possibly justified worry that some people might get trapped in a community and unable to advocate for themselves. Banning the rights of some to apply their beliefs to arbitration is NOT the answer to that issue; it would be a greater sin.

no, I totally get that, and generally agree. I'd say that the best idea might be to institutionalize the reformers and moderate voices, rather than entrench the already existing patriarchal establishment, but I certainly agree that a specific banning of something for Muslims only would cause more, if different, animosity toward mainstream UK society.

I dont know much about arbitration law, other than to say I don't think any law should be religious. So the UK Jews who have a similar court, I would be against, unless of course you and I could make up whatever rules we wanted and be arbitrated under those? I really don't know, needless to say, I'm not promoting banning anything, especially something as it specifically applies to Muslims.

I'm saying that letting sharia law, as defined by community elders and leaders in immigrant communities, be a dispute settling mechanism sort of cements a certain interpretation of Islam and insulates a community. I thought it was a little odd how much of a freedom and pluralistic wank fest this thread was, considering we would all agree that the most fundamental interpretations of Islam (the one given the most power in this system) is not something that ensures freedom.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
They may want it, but they won't get it.

Saudi Arabia spends billions of dollars investing in Western and other nations around the world, with the intent of making this happen.

Money can buy a lot of things...

Originally posted by inimalist
Saudi Arabia spends billions of dollars investing in Western and other nations around the world, with the intent of making this happen.

Money can buy a lot of things...

So, you honestly think that it's a real possibility that stonings and hands being cut off could suddenly be enforced by law in the UK?

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
So, you honestly think that it's a real possibility that stonings and hands being cut off could suddenly be enforced by law in the UK?

suddenly being the operative word?

no

however I see, in most Western nations, a general, at very least, trepidation, in enforcing their core values and freedoms in the face of Islam.

Do you think its impossible that certain communities might end up with women not being able to go out alone? Even if its not a legal mandate, oppression is oppression.

Originally posted by inimalist
Do you think its impossible that certain communities might end up with women not being able to go out alone? Even if its not a legal mandate, oppression is oppression.

I think it's very possible and is probably already happening.

I agree, it's completely oppressive and out of order, but the fact seems to be - it will happen regardless. It's completely beyond me how this could be solved, but I have to echo Ush's earlier statement on the matter - that not allowing such a fundamental freedom would only cause more tension.