|
Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable' (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
EU directives and regulations override ALL laws across Europe and that includes UK laws AND Sharia Law! |
do they really!? huh, i didnt know that, cheers :)
surely the EU doesn't have a criminal code as well though? |
|
|
| George Smiley |
OK so I've been watching BBC News 24 and it appears the Archbishop has basically made a huge and got his facts all wrong. The reason he made his comments were because he pointed to Jewish courts that already exist and said that if they can declare marriages void, then why shouldn't Sharia courts be able to declare Muslim marriages void. He thought that these Jewish courts had some kind of legal personality within civil law and that they therefore must have some kind of juristriction in other areas of civil law - they don't. Jewish courts are completely cultural and exclusive of the law. They have no juristiction whatsoever in British law. If a UK civil court declares a marriage void, it is void legally. If a Jewish court declares a marriage void or complete, that has no legal merit whatsoever - that would still have to be reaffirmed by UK civil law (it is possible that certain religious figures can be given the authority to carry out UK civil law as I believe happens in the Church weddings).
Because he thought Jewish courts had legal power, he was saying why shouldn't Sharia courts also have the same? Well he's made a tremendous up, nobody supports him and he's made himself look like a giant penis |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
OK so I've been watching BBC News 24 and it appears the Archbishop has basically made a huge and got his facts all wrong. The reason he made his comments were because he pointed to Jewish courts that already exist and said that if they can declare marriages void, then why shouldn't Sharia courts be able to declare Muslim marriages void. He thought that these Jewish courts had some kind of legal personality within civil law and that they therefore must have some kind of juristriction in other areas of civil law - they don't. Jewish courts are completely cultural and exclusive of the law. They have no juristiction whatsoever in British law. If a UK civil court declares a marriage void, it is void legally. If a Jewish court declares a marriage void or complete, that has no legal merit whatsoever - that would still have to be reaffirmed by UK civil law (it is possible that certain religious figures can be given the authority to carry out UK civil law as I believe happens in the Church weddings).
Because he thought Jewish courts had legal power, he was saying why shouldn't Sharia courts also have the same? Well he's made a tremendous up, nobody supports him and he's made himself look like a giant penis |
lol. george has such a way with words :haha:
if these courts have no legal authority, whats the point of them?
ing religion gives me the right s :mad: |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
do they really!? huh, i didnt know that, cheers :)
surely the EU doesn't have a criminal code as well though? |
No that is down to member states to decide upon. Laws agreed at EU level tend to be laws that need to be the same in each country for an issue to be addressed properly (best examples are economic laws or environmental laws)
And yes, it is written in the Treaties that when EU law contradicts national law, the EU law is binding and the existing national law must be adapted to make it compatable |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
And yes, it is written in the Treaties that when EU law contradicts national law, the EU law is binding and the existing national law must be adapted to make it compatable |
i know the paranoid freaks like trancer see this as the beginning of the end, but that gets a big ing thumbs up from an internationalist like me :) that's well cool :)
now, if only the EU could enforce some improvements to the english football team :( |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
lol. george has such a way with words :haha:
if these courts have no legal authority, whats the point of them?
ing religion gives me the right s :mad: |
Well if you've had a divorce, but are religious and want to remarry in a Church/Synogogue/etc, then those institutions will not allow you to remarry there unless they have said your previous divorce is ok. You might be legally divorced, but that doesn't mean the Church should be forced into allowing you to remarry there. The Church decide who gets married in the Church as they are a private orgainsation with their own "membership rules", that's fair enough |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Well if you've had a divorce, but are religious and want to remarry in a Church/Synogogue/etc, then those institutions will not allow you to remarry there unless they have said your previous divorce is ok. You might be legally divorced, but that doesn't mean the Church should be forced into allowing you to remarry there. The Church decide who gets married in the Church as they are a private orgainsation with their own "membership rules", that's fair enough |
meh, they can all burn to the ground for all i care. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
I really think there is a misunderstanding still about the type of law that is being addressed here. Sharia family law is not a branch of political Islam, nor is it a criminal code. It is simply a different form of civil law involving the arbitration of social disagreements. So it would in part simply replace (or supplement) things like divorce court and the role of such legal scholars as a Judge Judy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia...age_and_divorce
I really don't see any harm to British society by opening up an alternative family court system - in fact, I am inclined to agree with the Archbishop that it could greatly reduce a source of tension between the growing Islamic community and Britain more generally. Any time there is a large group that emigrates to a specific country that country is shaped in part by the dynamics of the new population. Look at the immigration waves in the United States and you can see well how an influx of different groups changed the norms and standards of this country. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I am inclined to agree with the Archbishop that it could greatly reduce a source of tension between the growing Islamic community and Britain more generally |
That is on the assumption that the problem is Muslims having a problem with the rest of the UK. The tension is a two-way thing - non-Muslims have a lot more problems with Muslims than the other way around. Giving special attention to Muslims, especially when it's not even the Muslims complaining, will only increase tensions in the non-Muslim side...that's the real problem, not the other way round... |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
That is on the assumption that the problem is Muslims having a problem with the rest of the UK. The tension is a two-way thing - non-Muslims have a lot more problems with Muslims than the other way around. Giving special attention to Muslims, especially when it's not even the Muslims complaining, will only increase tensions in the non-Muslim side...that's the real problem, not the other way round... |
There is only one clear solution. make pork the national food, and put a pig on the coat of arms..... |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
Good point, and to an extent I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but I think eliminating a source of grievance with the British government could foster more broad acceptance of British society elsewhere within the Muslim community. "They ceded to our wishes by recognizing the applicability of Islamic family law, so maybe they're not so bad after all." Conflict resolution strategies have shown that small shows of trust and goodwill can go a long way to defusing latent conflicts. In other words, if the Muslim community is granted a desire, they may be less strident in their demands for more concessions, leading to an overall decline in the negative way they are viewed by other British citizens. The Archbishop is talking about a give and take, not a deferral to Muslim norms on all things related to state and society.
It's kind of theoretical and without having viewed British society in action it is hard for me to judge on a practical basis, but I think there is some fundamental merit to the ideas of the Archbishop in this case. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
