Sharia Law - Does it have a place in Democratic Countries?

So, no. You don't have any solutions. You just want to be a bitch. I'll accept that as an expert opinion. I did. Now why don't you try doing likewise? Here's what I said1. Translation services exist was in response to 'language problems exist'
2. It isn't a slippery slope and there is no immediate danger of Sharia law being implemented was said in response to 'some people are worried about a slippery slope'.When you've stopped crying about someone honestly pointing out that anti-multiculturalists routinely complain about language services perhaps you could engage me in a discussion? Or is that too hard for ickle baby jon who likes to dish out 'truth' but cries to mommy when someone reciprocates? I'm sorry that you don't like being on the side filled with racists, xenophobes and fascists, but it's perfectly honest for me to point that out.Jesus, talking to you is so difficult at times Jon. Can you either discuss Islam like an adult or just stop discussing it? If every time we talk I have to coach you down from hysteria, there's really no point. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

No one learns a language overnight. And I also mentioned familiarity with cultural norms and legal rights, which likely take as long to learn.And then only if one is willing/capable of learning these things. Case in point, when I used to teach English, there was a (Muslim) male student who left his wife at home with the kids much more often than he stayed home with them so she could come to class.It's not just good enough to set up a school if no one can get to it and vulnerable members of immigrant populations are more likely to face obstacles to getting to where the learning is taking place - obstacles often set up by members of their own community attempting to preserve the conservative and oppressive social orders 'from back home' with which they are familiar and from which they profit. Not the point I was making.The point of 2 was in connection with 1. When there are so many maniacal Sharia extremists, sensible people should be concerned of real possibility for abuse and oppression in such communities where Sharia is practiced. There are apparently plenty of Muslims in the U.K. fully eager for a day when Sharia can be used to oppress others and there are plenty of Muslims ripe for being oppressed.Now you could just use the cop out that they're all adults and should be let to do as they please; but the reality is that there are adults with full understanding of their legal rights and Western cultural norms and then there are freshly-arrived immigrants who may be easy to convince that 'Muslims follow separate rules'.You're giving crazy people a sick amount of power over vulnerable members of the Muslim community. I'm not sure how you justify that except to turn a blind eye.As for your nonsense about 'anti-multiculturalists' and your attempts to paint me as some conservative bigot, that's just you blowing smoke and avoiding the topic, which isn't whether I might be a bigot but whether allowing Sharia law might be holding open the door for the oppression of vulnerable minorities.

It's a problem on several levels. Firstly it's unfair and discriminatory. Why should a system that routinely discriminates against women be allowed in a liberal democracy?
Secondly there is evidence that many of those using Sharia law do not know that the outcomes from them have no actual legal standing in the UK and they are told the exact opposite. This from the research quoted above: This is just too glib. People are only free to take these actions if they have the freedom, confidence and knowledge to do so. Often the women that use these services do not have these Western advantages.It's not at all obvious to me why a secular society should allow the presence of a religious legal system that has such widely divergent aims and objectives than it's own - to do so simply maintains a descriminatory system that is illegal under it's own law. I assume this is why the UK is investigating how Sharia law is operating.I'm also not clear to what extent Sharia operates in the UK, family law is only a part of sharia. We would obviously totally refuse to tolerate many aspects of sharia punishment - flogging, hand amputation, stoning and so on. Saudi sharia bans women drivers. Is there a reason why our society does not allow such things but does tolerate the discimination of sharia family law?

PaulK makes the same arguments - Feel free to respond to my reply to him.

quote:

---

It's a problem on several levels. Firstly it's unfair and discriminatory. Why should a system that routinely discriminates against women be allowed in a liberal democracy?

---

i've already answered this. People are allowed to accept settlements inferior to those that the legal system would offer them. Why should a liberal democracy forbid that ?

quote:

---

Secondly there is evidence that many of those using Sharia law do not know that the outcomes from them have no actual legal standing in the UK and they are told the exact opposite.

---

Ignorance of the law is not a legal problem.You could have just answered "it isn't" instead of reiterating points that aren't relevant to the question and have already been addressed.

quote:

---

This is just too glib. People are only free to take these actions if they have the freedom, confidence and knowledge to do so. Often the women that use these services do not have these Western advantages.

---

You're missing the context. The point is that there is nothing wrong with the legal situation. The social situation is the problem, not "allowing Sharia law".

quote:

---

It's not at all obvious to me why a secular society should allow the presence of a religious legal system that has such widely divergent aims and objectives than it's own - to do so simply maintains a descriminatory system that is illegal under it's own law. I assume this is why the UK is investigating how Sharia law is operating.

---

But you haven't pointed out any reason why it should not be allowed. Instead you've raised issues which are better handled by social services and other support organisations. Education in legal rights, support for going to court, and so on.

quote:

---

I'm also not clear to what extent Sharia operates in the UK, family law is only a part of sharia. We would obviously totally refuse to tolerate many aspects of sharia punishment - flogging, hand amputation, stoning and so on. Saudi sharia bans women drivers. Is there a reason why our society does not allow such things but does tolerate the discimination of sharia family law?

---

Why do you keep asking questions that are answered in your OP? In the UK Sharia courts act as arbitrators in matters of civil law. That's all there is to it.

Because they are often entered into as unequal parties and are treated as as unequal parties during the hearing. Of course it is, particularly if you hae been lied to by those with power over you insisting you abide by their version of it. The social situation IS the context - sharia law is not real law in the UK it has no validity unless it is formally part an arbitration system and even then, if it conradicts any existing UK law, it is trumped by it. It's the social situation caused by Sharia that is the problem under discussion and review. The reasons are in the opening post from The Times article.However, I have now found the Bow Report which was published simultaneously with the announcement of the independent inquiry into Sharia Law. It's 40 pages long and I'm busy so it'll take me a while. This opening quote may sum up the problem for you: Page not found - The Bow Group

quote:

---

Because they are often entered into as unequal parties and are treated as as unequal parties during the hearing

---

If they choose that then, since it is a civil matter, it is their choice.

quote:

---

Of course it is, particularly if you hae been lied to by those with power over you insisting you abide by their version of it.

---

If people are unaware of their legal rights, giving them more legal rights is not likely to be a good answer.

quote:

---

The social situation IS the context - sharia law is not real law in the UK it has no validity unless it is formally part an arbitration system and even then, if it conradicts any existing UK law, it is trumped by it. It's the social situation caused by Sharia that is the problem under discussion and review.

---

in other words the legal situation is fine, and the social solutions - imperfect as they are - are the best answer.

quote:

---

Page not found - The Bow Group

---

If you read the recommendations (starting on p38) they don't suggest any big changes to the law. Most of it is just reinforcing what is already there.

Hence the use for translation services. You go on to discuss learning languages in a school, but I was talking about translation services. Where someone who already went to school translates documents for the government who can then give native language information to immigrants.You mention that this can be impeded by the actions of others. Yes it can. As can anything. We sensible people have been concerned with closeted religious communities of all faiths for many decades, Jon. I can't believe you are only recently joining us. The same is true of the non religious extremists. Doesn't actually take much to go from 'religion is a problem' to 'let's stamp out religion' to 'let's persecute the religious'. It's happened before and many many people died.We can watch out for the signs of this coming. People trying to ban headwear like yarmulkhas - I think they did that somewhere in Soviet Russia in the 30s or trying to ban civil agreements between consenting adults. Allowing adults to make their own decisions about how to distribute their finances and raise their children is not a cop out. Didn't you once say:

quote:

---

But it is not right to enforce cultural norms on everyone (just like I don't think Muslim or JW children should be forced to celebrate Halloween). If there is no good...reason to banning it, then it would simply be a case of 'we don't like it, so you shouldn't do it', and that is not, in my opinion, a valid reason for a law.

---

I mean, this was back in the day when you expressed that 'I don't think there is much to be made of {the Sharia issue}', so maybe you've changed your other views entirely in the last year? This is stupid. The correct thing to say isFreedom gives crazy people power over vulnerable people.That's how Jonestown and Waco happened. I understand that some people cannot stomach the price of freedom, and would prefer dictatorship. It's a seductive path that many have taken over the years. Unfortunately it doesn't actually stop freedom, it just means free acts are secretive. Freedom. I don't turn a blind eye. I've been looking right at this issue since I was a kid and a wave of Pakistani immigrants turned up at school and we learned about Islamic culture for the first time. Yes Sharia was discussed. We even read a liberal hippy dippy book about an immigrant whose parents were going through a divorce through such a court. I remember in class debates about the subject as a teenager.The idea that I need to justify other people exploiting the vulnerable is quite the disgusting tactic by the way Jon. I don't. It happens. A lot. Including to me. It's immoral and often illegal. I wasn't painting you as a conservative bigot. I was pointing out, while taking pains to avoid suggesting you were among them, that your 'side' has a disproportionate number of racists whose ideas would make the situation worse rather than better.Disallowing Sharia law holds the door wider open for the oppression of vulnerable minorities. At least in the UK they have to follow the Arbitration Act and deviations can render any binding agreement null.They could just ignore that and say they are still 'Islamically' binding - you might say. Well yes, of course. They'd also do that if Sharia Courts were not permitted. Because the Courts would take place where they used to take place - in the living room or in a quiet side room of a Mosque. They would be framed as community discussions, in the event that outsiders queried it. Basically, the same thing would be happening now, it just reduces the legitimate avenues women have recourse to making them more vulnerable to exploitation.See what I mean?

So you are saying we should make the internet, employment, politics and religion all illegal? Well they do have actual legal standing in the UK. So being told this would be being informed of the truth. Is this a problem? That's nice and patronising. In the case of women that can't give informed consent, the arbitration hearing is invalid and the court's decisions aren't binding and are just some guys saying some stuff. Some guys saying some stuff is legal and has a place in the UK too. It doesn't.It tolerates free people negotiating and arbitrating amongst themselves outside of the courts. You could look it up. I believe the investigation is into certain arbitration courts which are believed to operating outside of the law. It doesn't. At all. It should also be noted that there isn't a 'Sharia law' any more than there is a definitive opinion on 'form' and 'substance' of the body of Christ with regards to the communion wafer. Yes, an unfortunate consequence of what might be argued as the sensible prohibition against women travelling the roads alone in 8th Century Arabia.Nevertheless, if that's how you would like to live your life - here in the UK you should be free to do so. Because families are given the autonomy to rule themselves in the UK, and are given some tools to settle disputes should they be needed.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

The evidence is that it is often not a choice. The answer is to properly regulate and oversee the operations of these councils and ensure that women get proper advice and treatment. The UK civil law is fine, Sharia law on the other hand appears not to be hence the European Court of Human Rights judgement and the reports of discrimination and unwarranted pressure on the women that are often forced to use it (98% of users are women because men do not need the Sharia courts to dissolve a marriage - they just say 'I divorce you' three times and the job is done - charming. Of course the 'judges' are also men. If you read the paper - particularly the evidence provided by the women that were abused by the existing process - you'll understand why things need to change. The recommendations are a little irrelevant as they refer to a bill that was abandonned at the first the first reading, but they did require significant changes to practice and even the introduction of a new criminal offence - 'criminalising any person who purports to legally adjudicate upon matters which ought to be decided by criminal or family courts'.

quote:

---

The evidence is that it is often not a choice.

---

And if it isn't a choice it isn't legally binding. How often do I have to point out that the law as it stands is fine on that point?But if it is chosen, is it wrong ? And if it is wrong, what would you do about it ?

quote:

---

The UK civil law is fine

---

Thank you for finally agreeing with my point.

quote:

---

f you read the paper - particularly the evidence provided by the women that were abused by the existing process - you'll understand why things need to change. The recommendations are a little irrelevant as they refer to a bill that was abandonned at the first the first reading, but they did require significant changes to practice and even the introduction of a new criminal offence - 'criminalising any person who purports to legally adjudicate upon matters which ought to be decided by criminal or family courts'.

---

The recommendations are the most relevant part of the document, because they are the proposed solution. And you will note that they do not propose significantly changing the place afforded Sharia courts by UK law.

I think you have no clue on that point. I suggest you read this paper in full.Page not found - One Law for All I started this thread so that I could learn about how Sharia law operates in the UK, so far I'm not finding anything to reassure me. The evidence is heavily against the idea that these courts and councils are fair or transparent or that all women enter them freely and accept their judgements without pressure.

quote:

---

I think you have no clue on that point.

---

And yet your quote nowhere says that the Sharia courts findings are legally binding. All it talks about is the social pressures, a completely different issue, and one that I have never disputed.If I "have no clue" why does the quote say absolutely nothing to contradict my position?

You're going to have to remind me what exact point you're disputing.

I'm stating that Sharia law has a valid place in a democratic country as an option for resolving civil disputes - if both parties agree. I'm further pointing out that British law grants it that place - and no more.