Sharia law now official in UK

[Az]

Sharia law, the legal code of Islam, is now official in the United Kingdom.

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

Excerpt
-------------------
ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.
-------------------

Jewish legal systems have been in effect in the UK for over 100 years so this is not unheard of. Its basically a system of arbitration where if both parties agree to having their case presided over by the Sharia legal system it will be handed off to a Sharia council. Sharia law has been in the UK for some time now but has not been official. Instead it has operated as a voluntary system behind the scenes for Muslims. Now it has the full weight of the British legal system behind it.

[msongs]

1. big mistake, the first step towards losing their democracy IMO nt

[skooooo]

2. no kidding

What are they thinking???

[muntrv]

3. Religion should NEVER be the law of the land.

[ZombieHorde]

4. Religious courts are very creepy.

[LiberalFighter]

5. Will they step in when it goes contrary to English law?

Such as stoning a woman for adultery?

[gravity]

6. This is absurd

The legal system should support human rights above everything else

[Boudica the Lyoness]

7. This is awful.

Looks like the England I remember is gone forever.

[Occam Bandage]

8. Am I the only one here who isn't offended by this?

It's a system of voluntary arbitration like any other. The only thing Britain has done here is provide enforcement, as it does with other voluntary arbitration systems. If both parties want to settle their disputes by a certain code, and both parties want to ensure that the the other party will comply with the decision, then who is harmed?

[cosmik debris]

10. We let Judge Judy settle disputes

So why not Judge Muhammad?

[Occam Bandage]

11. Pretty much. If two folks can find a way to settle their differences,

without adding to the burden of the court system, then I can't really see a problem, so long as the terms of the arbitration are not illegal.

[Piewhacket]

15. We do?

We let Judge Judy settle disputes? Egad! Call the police.
We must cease this barbaric practice at once!

(I think she pays people to submit to her 'jurisdiction'.
Occasionally I will catch a broadcast, and when I do,
somehow 'Sharia law' begins to look civilized. hey! )

45 Cal.3d 518 SUMMARY
On review of a recommendation of the Commission on Judicial
Performance that a municipal judge be removed from office, the
Supreme Court adopted the recommendation and ordered the judge
removed, holding the judge had committed four acts of willful
misconduct and fourteen acts of prejudicial conduct. It held the
judge's conduct exhibited a pattern of personal embroilment in
the cases assigned to him, and showed a loss of temperance and
objectivity on several occasions, resulting in prejudice to the
parties appearing before him or an abuse of his contempt power.

[cosmik debris]

16. All just powers of government

are derived from the consent of the governed.

[PassingFair]

17. Who is harmed?

Those with less inherent power within the system.

In this case, women and children.

[Occam Bandage]

20. And why are they harmed? Just like with any other system of arbitration,

the dispute is only brought before a Sharia court if both parties declare that they want to arbitrate the dispute in that way instead of in British courts. If a woman believes that a Sharia court would disadvantage her, all she has to do is not ask for a Sharia court, and the case is heard by the standard judicial system.

[Darwins Doberman]

22. if the Muslim family is even considering going to a Shar'ia Court

the likelihood of the woman being in a situation where her opinion has any validity in determining where the outcome from the situation should come from is between zero and zero percent. Give or take zero percent.

[cosmik debris]

23. Families don't go to court. Individuals go to court.

And your knowledge of the habits of British Muslims is somewhat suspect.

[Darwins Doberman]

24. which habits would those be?

the enjoyment of a song like Dirty Kuffar among young British Muslims? Perpetrating attacks like the 7/7 bombers, or the asshole doctors last year? Going to Abu Hamza al-Masri for spiritual guidance? These kind of "habits"?

Shar'ia isn't practiced by moderate Muslims, it's practiced by the extremely devout. The kind who takes great offense to any depiction of the illiterate pedophile founder of their faith, despite the fact the rules only apply to Muslims. Islam by itself is already a misogynistic faith, when it's taken to its fundamentalist extremes, as is always the case when Shar'ia is applied, well, the woman doesn't stand much of a chance.

[cosmik debris]

25. Contributions to stereotypes are not tax deductible. n/t

[Darwins Doberman]

26. I'm assuming by your apologies towards religious fundamentalism that

you'd have no problem if Orthodox Fundamentalist Jewish fanatics who were followers of the Fascist Rabbi Meir Kahane set up a court system in America to determine the outcomes of conflicts between practicing Jews based entirely on the Pentatuch?

[cosmik debris]

27. Alright, You just made that shit up.

If you want to mis-characterize my position to make it easier for you to post criticism, then I don't suppose you want to hear about the straw man fallacy.

Maybe you should respond to what I said instead of making shit up.

[JerseygirlCT]

29. What about parties who can't give their consent? nt

[Piewhacket]

9. I don't see what's bizarre about this......

It is common in US contracts to specify the law of another
jurisdiction as applying to the contract. That is done all the time.

In the US people can settle disputes with arbitration or an agreement,
and a judge can sign off on it, providing a legally en forcible judgment.
So long as a judge is not required to sign off on something illegal
or in violation of public policy, where is the problem?

I didn't see anywhere that this was not
entirely a voluntary arrangement. Shouldn't we allow people
to settle their own disputes as they like whenever possible?

I don't get what's up here? did i miss something?

[Az]

12. I agree. Its not that big a deal

As I mentioned in the OP Jews have had the same arraignment for over a century now. If the courts can turn cases over to community or cultural advisers for adjudication in the case of civil suits then it makes sense. Particularly when disputes break out along cultural issues.

The caveats are that it must be voluntary on the part of both parties and that it must remain civil suits. A person's rights must be protected no matter what they may believe.

[HamdenRice]

13. I think there is also an "offensive to civilization" exception

I'm too lazy this morning to actually do the research, but I remember that British colonial law allowed traditional African courts to adjudicate disputes, but in the British law that enabled this, there was always a clause that said that traditional rules or decisions that were offensive to civilization would not be upheld.

I would guess there is some similar clause in the mother country's allowance of arbitration by Islamic and Jewish courts.

So there will be no chopping off of hands or stoning of harlots in London.

[Evoman]

14. Yeah...it's really no biggie.

Now why anyone would WANT to be ruled by sharia in their civil cases is beyond me, but if they want to, I really don't give a shit. Really, it's not like if we go to the U.K. we have to worry about being sentenced under Sharia law! Why would anyone possibly think the government would give up power like that to a minority group?? Relax, people.

[PassingFair]

18. Will they enforce arranged marriage contracts?

How about child custody laws?

Not everyone who "consents" will see
their best interests served by Sharia Law.

[Az]

19. Nope. Not if both parties do not agree to it

It requires both parties to agree to settle the case under Sharia law. If someone is under a contract and wishes to discuss it they do not have to opt for Sharia law. In fact the first option is British Common Wealth law. They can opt out if they choose to.

[Piewhacket]

21. About consent....

US and GB have a common legal foundation and tradition. There can be only one King.
No provision of Sharia law which violates the sovereign's public policy would be
permitted.

Thus the forcible 'marriage' of a non-consenting 'minor' (person unde a certain legal age)
would be given the same regard in Great Britain as it is in the US. Criminal prosecution
for child abuse. Such a 'contract of marriage' would not be enforcible in a court of law
in either place. It would violate the long-standing public policy of the sovereign.

That is not to say that a society somewhere might not find it proper to permit
such arrangements. It just says that neither GB or US (presently) permits it,
i am quite confident, whatever you've read.

And please be reassured, the criminal enterprise currently in charge of the US is
too busy looting and creating the Fourth Reich to worry about changing those
laws just at present. Maybe later. Feel better now? Yer welcome.

[JerseygirlCT]

28. Huge, huge mistake.

So Muslim children now have lost the protection of UK law? Can they consent to being ruled by sharia?

This is a bad, bad, bad idea.

[Gwendolyn]

30. Hmmm... and the article you posted shows how women get screwed over.

It isn't a good thing at all. Aside from the potential screwing of women in general, it's assumed that people have an autonomous choice in the matter as to which form of law they prefer to be beholden. Communities and families can exert a lot of pressure in this area, particularly over women. And adhering to the law of the "old country" does absolutely nothing to help immigrants assimilate.