|
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
first, a question. currently, what is to prevent muslims from arbitrating their differences in the provisions already available to them in the UK? (i doubt the arbitration system differs much between the US, UK or Oz so id like your input). |
As far as I know, nothing. But in the U.S., arbitration law largely falls under the umbrella of state law, and there is considerable difference between states (this also creates a large number of jurisdictional nightmares, whereby it becomes questionable what state's arbitration law applies to an interstate arbitration agreement, et cetera.) I am not especially well read on all the different policies, but I am told that there is considerable differences from one state to another, so it may be very different in the UK as well.
| quote: | | secondly, surely if sharia law is desired in an arbitration setting, then it IS somehow different to what is already available, and how would sharia law reconcile with UK law? what if there is a conflict - surely if UK law trumps sharia, whats the point in the first place? and if for some insane reason it doesn't, well that's an entirely different problem. |
My understanding of this topic is still a bit limited, so there may be some inaccuracies here, but I will do my best to explain how it would work as I understand it.
Arbitration law may be thought of as a sort of contract law, and in this sense it can "overrule" UK law. For example, if a person signs a contract which limits their ability to hold another party liable for certain damages, then they (generally) could not seek damages later -- the contractual agreement would nullify their normal right to seek damages under the relevant UK tort law.
However, there are laws governing contracts which, of course, cannot be overruled by the contents of a contract, and in the case of arbitration there are further laws governing arbitration which cannot be overruled by the terms of an arbitration agreement.
So there are some ways in which Sharia law could "replace" UK law for the resolution of a particular dispute, but only to the extent that UK law permits with regards to what can be contracted, arbitrated, et cetera, and under what terms.
In a Sharia law arbirtated divorce, for instance, the proceedings would be goverened first by UK contract law, then by UK arbitration law, and finally, within that framework, Sharia law could determine that which was not already set forth by the preceding UK law. UK family law would not overrule the Sharia law unless the Sharia law was deemed to be exceeding the limitations placed on it by contract and/or arbitration law.
| quote: | | your analysis is all well and good (and awfully logical!) but, in the larger (or longer) context, it could prove to be the first "stepping stone" towards something else. you give religion and inch and it takes a mile. |
I am generally not too concerned with this; the government need not endorse Sharia law at all -- all that is being permitted is that private individuals can agree to settle their dispute out of court under terms and procedures they find mutually agreeable, regardless of the religious or secular origin of those terms.
There is some danger if it becomes too institutionalized (and, granted, the Archbishop may well envision a more institutionalized version of such proceedings than I could support.) And there is also a problem if public funds are used to support these arbitration proceedings. But other than that, I don't see it as much more threatening than merely allowing people to practice their own religion.
| quote: | | the bishop is worried about "social inclusion" yet perhaps providing different systems for different people will only entrench that alienation further? |
I tend to agree; even if it makes muslisms less hostile to British society, it reinforces the "us and them" mentality which underlies the politics of "group identity" (which I am vehemently against). That's why I characterized his proposal as somewhat quixotic.
| quote: | at the end of the day, religious law has NO place in a secular society, and should be resisted at every turn. laws and decisions should never ever work within a religious framework, it defeats the entire point of the legal system.
in my entirely biased and anti religion opinion, political islam (or political christianity etc) should never be able to gain a foothold in our society. and things like "sharia arbitration" is merely the beginning. |
I would much prefer to have no religious law (or religion for that matter), but I also have a strong inclination towards the freedom to contract and to settle matters out of court, so long as the pertinent contracts and out-of-court settlements do not create significant social injustice. In this case, I worry that such a practice could undermine the freedom of individual muslims, rather than enhancing it, which is why I generally oppose the archbishop's stance, although I do not find it outrageous.
|
