British Government introduces Sharia Law

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Zevico
Cool it, cat. The British government never introduced Sharia law. It simply allowed parties to go to binding arbitration courts outside the legal system, including 'sharia' [islamic law] and 'halacha' [jewish law] courts. ....

I've never considered these ramifications, but I guess California has the same type laws. The parties may voluntarily agree to go to an arbitration, who can use any law the parties agree on.

Now, it wouldn't work in criminal law, divorce, or child custody because there's so much public policy mandates...but any case where someone is suing someone else for, say, breach of contract or an auto accident. Sure.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Zevico
Notes-http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960023_en_2#pt1-pb1-l1g2

ooopsi.gov.uk

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Darius871

Bingo; if both parties agree beforehand to binding arbitration and understands the rules it will use, even the U.S. would normally enforce it under the FAA. This would only be news if the courts themselves applied Sharia law.

Yep, it seems like an enlightened policy. I can imagine Muslims or Jews who would have a much easier time with decisions if they were handed down by their own communities, and as long as everyone agrees to it, it is a win win.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Agathon


Yep, it seems like an enlightened policy. I can imagine Muslims or Jews who would have a much easier time with decisions if they were handed down by their own communities, and as long as everyone agrees to it, it is a win win.

Maybe the British are learning. Well some of them anyway.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by aneeshm
We do this in India because the Muslims (or rather, their community "leaders") squealed like stuck pigs at the time of independence, demanding their separate laws on personal matters to "maintain community traditions", and because no government since then has had the guts to tell the Muslims to stuff it, and the entire community remains oppressed by regressive personal law because of this.

This is very, very bad.

I guess it would be less oppressive if you Hindus decided everything for them then.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by aneeshm
We do this in India because the Muslims (or rather, their community "leaders") squealed like stuck pigs at the time of independence, demanding their separate laws on personal matters to "maintain community traditions", and because no government since then has had the guts to tell the Muslims to stuff it, and the entire community remains oppressed by regressive personal law because of this..

You set fire to women in your country. There really is no comparison.

[Arrian]

We do this in India because the Muslims (or rather, their community "leaders") squealed like stuck pigs at the time of independence, demanding their separate laws on personal matters to "maintain community traditions"

Ah, now we have confirmation that this is a perfectly sane policy.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian


Ah, now we have confirmation that this is a perfectly sane policy.

-Arrian

I presume that included under your definition of sane would be:

Women being entitled to no maintenance in the case of divorce.
A man being able to legally marry up to four wives.
A man being able to unilaterally divorce his wives simply by uttering the word "Talaq" thrice. Over SMS.
Sons getting twice as much as daughters in matters of inheritance.

And the juiciest:

A woman raped by her father-in-law being told to divorce her current husband and marry the rapist.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I guess it would be less oppressive if you Hindus decided everything for them then.

So you do not believe in all citizens being covered by one law? You believe in different laws for different communities?

[Maniac]

All the world should follow EU Law damn it.

[Arrian]

I presume that included under your definition of sane would be:

A bunch of hysterical drivel

No, my definition would be:

Allowing for "contract arbitration with religious draperies" as Che put it.

I'm not a fan of religion, of course, but this reminds me of a fellow atheists' description of Earth: Mostly Harmless.

-Arrian

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Maniac
All the world should follow EU Law damn it.

QFT

[Heraclitus]

Am I the only who has asked himself how many poor Muslim women will be put under pressure to go agree to go to trial under Muslim laws that are unfavorable to them?!?!

[Arrian]

No, I've pondered that too. That's the real worry.

As Dauphin says, however:

The other thing to remember is that any decision made by a tribunal that contravenes English law is not enforceable.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Yet the article says this:

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.

Which is right?

-Arrian