Sharia courts empowered by the government

[Windzarko]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

Just found this; it's been kept as quiet as possible, haven't seen it on TV or in the newspapers yet.

I personally found it disgusting, just wondered if that was just me or if other people felt the same?

 

[Huung]

Heard about this a couple of days ago. It appeared in the news about a year ago, before they actually existed. It does seem to have been kept under the covers far too much, and I cant see why it would be tbh, its an important issue...

 

[Windzarko]

Heard about this a couple of days ago. It appeared in the news about a year ago, before they actually existed. It does seem to have been kept under the covers far too much, and I cant see why it would be tbh, its an important issue...

The courts have existed but didn't have any real power. Now they have the full authority of the judicial system for the affairs they have been empowered to deal with.

 

[thatbloke]

What a load of crap.

We're now going to have a two-tier judicial system and yet more frickin training and paperwork required by police to deal with "standard" or "sharia" law.

 

[Wraith]

Putting aside the issue of criminal cases for a moment (the domestic abuse cases etc which I'll get back to), afaik it has always been the case in Britain that "alternative" courts can rule over contract disputes (including marriage breakups, inheritances and other family issues) provided that all parties agree to it.

If we wanted, I could enter into a contract with any of you and, provided we both agreed to it, we could arrange for the forum admins to mediate any dispute ad it would be legally valid. This is no different to the civil powers mentioned in the article - in fact it says quite clearly that all parties must agree. The fact that women are likely to get a worse deal than the men just means that any woman wanting to get a fair deal should not agree to it being mediated under Sharia rules. It should then default back to standard UK contract law.

Going back to the criminal cases, this I absolutely disagree with. I believe that the law should be standard for everyone in the country (or ideally the world but that's not going to happen any time soon). If one person is punished for doing something illegal then no-one else should be allowed to just get away with the same act just because of their religion. On the other hand, just because the punishments were lenient in these cases (anger management classes really are a joke as far as I'm concerned) it doesn't mean that they would be treated harsher under a UK court. We've all heard of criminals getting pathetic sentences and these are no different but because it's a different court people are getting up in arms over it.

 

[Windzarko]

I have no beef with people using these courts as a way to settle non-criminal disputes; if anything, the religious stamp added to the settling of this dispute by the court may even make both parties happier about the result than they would have been otherwise.

It's the different treatment in criminal cases that got me angry. I heavily object to religion ever being allowed to have any influence or effect on government and law.

The domestic violence case particularly got to me; a wife-beater gets sent to anger management classes, when in a regular court he could have been charged with assault and battery? And all because these courts favour men? It's disgusting...

Almost as disgusting as the fact that apparently if I were to publicly protest this in any way, I'd apparently be guilty of "instilling racial hatred" or religious hatred or some other utter nonsense.

 

[Bradstreet]

This is totally devil's advocate stuff (and I know two wrongs, etc), but, since this space is supposed to be about causing trouble ... what makes those of you who are so appalled at the Sharia courts' attitudes to women so sure that the UK courts are impartial, unbiased, and not at all sexist? Women who are victims of domestic violence, rape, and other crimes are intimidated, treated as suspects not victims, and interrogated on their skirt length and personal behaviour in ways which are completely unacceptable.

 

[Gopha]

Women who are victims of domestic violence, rape, and other crimes are intimidated, treated as suspects not victims, and interrogated on their skirt length and personal behaviour in ways which are completely unacceptable.

Well thats just as well considering the amount of times that women do essentially Cry Wolf. Trying to put innocent men in prison, but unfortunately its the minority who ruin it for the majority as usual so we have to act like this.


But as for Sharia Law Courts, I suppose I am for it in a way as it does make us very multicultural blah blah blah but I think this country is one big sell out now.

 

[thatbloke]

If people want to live in this country, they should live by the laws of this country.

I don't see other countries that enforce Sharia law as the norm having separate courts for "westerners". Suggest something like that to them and you will probably be beaten.

If people want to live by Sharia law, then they should go to a country where Sharia law is the norm, and NOT try and alter our own laws.

Double standards FTL.

 

[DocBot]

Well thats just as well considering the amount of times that women do essentially Cry Wolf. Trying to put innocent men in prison, but unfortunately its the minority who ruin it for the majority as usual so we have to act like this.

Care to back that statement up?

 

[DocBot]

If people want to live in this country, they should live by the laws of this country.

If people want to live by Sharia law, then they should go to a country where Sharia law is the norm, and NOT try and alter our own laws.

Ah, yes. Only citizens with white enough ancestry are allowed to try and alter laws, is that it? Or, do you mean that the laws hasn't changed at all, ever, in your country? Or do you mean that it is somehow more YOUR country than it is the country of other full citizens? What makes it so? Where is the line drawn? Your ancestors, at some point, migrated there too, you know.

Looks the old tiresome xenophobic crap we get here in Sweden (and elsewhere in the western world) to me.

Now, I'm not saying Sharia law is a good thing, especially not when it comes to criminal court, but the arguments against it has to be better than that.

 

[thatbloke]

I'm not being xenophobic at all.

People are entitled to try and change the way that the laws work, but only if a majority of people agree that said law is valid.

The problem with government here is that they bend over backwards to try and please minorities and in the process forget about the majority.

I don't see why if people are moving to a different country they should expect the laws and culture of that country to be the same as the one they came from. If people have a problem with that, then they should go and live somewhere where they are more comfortable with the laws and culture that are present in that country.

 

[DocBot]

I'm not being xenophobic at all.

I'll take your word for it. Your arguments, however, are mainly used by xenophobics in my experience.

People are entitled to try and change the way that the laws work, but only if a majority of people agree that said law is valid.

Now, that is not how lawmaking works, and you know that. I don't know about the UK, but here in Sweden the support for the anti-piracy laws are lacking, to say the least. Just to make an example.

Also, as far as I understood from the article (correct me if I'm wrong), there hasn't actually been any changes to any laws.

The problem with government here is that they bend over backwards to try and please minorities and in the process forget about the majority.

What bearing has that for this case? If no laws were changed?

I don't see why if people are moving to a different country they should expect the laws and culture of that country to be the same as the one they came from. If people have a problem with that, then they should go and live somewhere where they are more comfortable with the laws and culture that are present in that country.

Yes, history is positively littered with just that sort of behaviour, I mean take the vikings in Ireland, for example; they adapted to their new climate well enough. Or the europeans in america, fine example of subjecting to Indian law there. Or any other group of people migrating to another country actually, noone ever tried to change anything in their new place of residence. Oh, wait.

 

[waterproofbob]

Yes, history is positively littered with just that sort of behaviour, I mean take the vikings in Ireland, for example; they adapted to their new climate well enough. Or the europeans in america, fine example of subjecting to Indian law there. Or any other group of people migrating to another country actually, noone ever tried to change anything in their new place of residence. Oh, wait.

All of those examples are reasons for me that we should try and avoid this current situation. I know many expats from the UK as old Navy friends of my Dad. They have gone to live in various countries around the world and they all accepted when they did that they would have to change and accept the culture and law system of the country they moved to. I think it is brilliant here in the UK that there is starting to be such cultural diversity but I don't think any group should be allowed to govern itself as a separate group away from the majority.

I don't know enough about what is actually happening regarding the Sharia courts and how much power they have/will have but I believe that law should be consistent across the board. This isn't just something that applies to Sharia law it also covers the justice system in general in the UK at the moment. It links to Nanor's thread as well. There seems to be a definite lack of consistency in the way certain criminals are treated and the punishment that is given.

Hopefully going forward this will integrate seamlessly and the Muslim communities will badger the government less. This could be an excellent thing that makes the transition for people entering the UK easier and could also take off some of the strain that can be caused in civil cases involving religious groups on the judicial system. This will certainly be an interesting one to watch.

 

[Bradstreet]

Well thats just as well considering the amount of times that women do essentially Cry Wolf. Trying to put innocent men in prison

And that -- right there -- would be an example of what I'm talking about.

As for the debate around the Sharia courts, it seems like it could be an excellent example of encouraging a diversity that dilutes rather than increases tensions. No British laws have been changed to produce this situation, and though I, like others, would like to know more about the extent of their criminal powers I think the power of community arbitration is potentially very positive.

And British expats -- famously for fitting seamlessly into new cultures, and not demanding beer, egg, chips, and the union flag at every opportunity.

 

[Gopha]

And that -- right there -- would be an example of what I'm talking about.

You completely took that out of context

 

[DocBot]

as a side note, this says something about how we handle "the religious stuff" in Sweden, compared to the UK. Basically, we're secular. End of story. Doesn't matter whether you're christian, muslim, jewish or whatever (but of course it's currently aimed at the muslim population). I like the approach, personally. But then again, distrust for the government here is, shall we say, "slightly" less widespread than in the UK imho. We've had national identity numbers since 1947.

 

[Taffy]

Women who are victims of domestic violence, rape, and other crimes are intimidated, treated as suspects not victims, and interrogated on their skirt length and personal behaviour in ways which are completely unacceptable.

Those are pretty bold accusations right there. Got any proof that this sort of treatment is a regular occurence? Besides, even if it were, thats still a damn sight better than many women are treated by Sharia courts in Muslim countries.

 

[Bradstreet]

Got any proof that this sort of treatment is a regular occurence?

Try this and all the links associated with it. There's also a relevant op-ed from Naomi Woolf and some rather older Mirror coverage of an Amnesty International report. And, for the most recent example, just look at the woman who was going to have her compensation cut because she had been drinking before she was raped -- and the 14 other cases this year in which that had already happened (blog comment, relating it to current legal conditions in Scotland here).

And as I said in my original message, I was rabble-rousing to some extent, but I am very suspicious of the way the media (and many people) in this country manage to combine racist objections to other cultures with a refusal to examine their own bigotry and flaws. It's not to say that we shouldn't criticise oppression wherever we see it, but that we should acknowledge that we too are still a long way from real equality.

 

[Tingham]

Speaking as a Diplomat and Civil Servant :

Sharia Courts will NOT take priority over the current Judicial System. They will merely be an option for courts to defer to should they need it, or feel it is nescecary.
It will always appear to one group that the government is trying to bend over backwards for another group. It is important here to distinguish between the Goernment in the sense of the labour cabinet, and the government in terms of us Civil Servants , Diplomats , Staff etc.

The Labour Administration is NOT secular , but , it is scared to back a religion and attempts to appease them all , with confusing results as we can see.

The Government itself is officially secular and, as far as ive seen , treats every case as secular. Ive been called as an official to represent people many-a-time and the number one cardinal rule is that the british criminal justice system is secular.

Speaking as an Amnesty International Speechwriter and Organiser:

It is important to remember that anyone in Britain , and accross the world that accepts basic human rights that people have the right both to freedom of religion, but they also have a right to a fair trial.
In a non-secular system , these two are very hard to put together. But , as i say , Her Majesties Prosecuion system are funcionally secular.

One of the worst things you can do if you are offended by something is make a kneww jerk reaction , if you would like to make a complaint , please contact me and ill put you in touch with people who can make your voice heard.