The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".
Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.
For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.
He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
...
He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".
But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".
This is where I draw the line. There is no way on Earth I will ever agree to any aspect of Shari'a law being adopted in this country. One law for everybody is the core of what makes this a free society, it is way more important than the whole 'one man, one vote' thing. If you can't live with that and there is something else that commands your loyalty or allegiance then you should seriously consider if you are in the right country.
Not that anyone in this country has suggested anything like this AFAIK.
Take a good look at exactly what he said, the whole "We should adopt Sharia Law" thing, just that 'to reflect our society today, laws will likely end up changing a bit to fit the morals of the not insubstantial portion of the population which follows sharia principles.
Quote:
"That principle that there is only one law for everybody is an important pillar of our social identity as a western democracy," he said.
"But I think it is a misunderstanding to suppose that means people don't have other affiliations, other loyalties which shape and dictate how they behave in society and that the law needs to take some account of that."
<snip>
Dr Williams noted that Orthodox Jewish courts already operated, and that the law accommodated the anti-abortion views of some Christians.
"The whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways the law of the land pays respect to custom and community, that's already there," he said.
If you're going to allow multicultural immigration, the altering of the national culture and its laws is unavoidable.
NTM
__________________
A man only needs two tools in life. WD-40 and duct tape. If it moves and it shouldn't, use the duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should, use WD-40.
Take a good look at exactly what he said, the whole "We should adopt Sharia Law" thing, just that 'to reflect our society today, laws will likely end up changing a bit to fit the morals of the not insubstantial portion of the population which follows sharia principles.
Quote:
"That principle that there is only one law for everybody is an important pillar of our social identity as a western democracy," he said.
"But I think it is a misunderstanding to suppose that means people don't have other affiliations, other loyalties which shape and dictate how they behave in society and that the law needs to take some account of that."
<snip>
Dr Williams noted that Orthodox Jewish courts already operated, and that the law accommodated the anti-abortion views of some Christians.
"The whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways the law of the land pays respect to custom and community, that's already there," he said.
If you're going to allow multicultural immigration, the altering of the national culture and its laws is unavoidable.
NTM
I know what he said and there may be Orthodox Jewish courts in the UK, there certainly aren't any here.
Culture and law are not the same thing. This is not the Ottoman Empire, there is only one law for everyone.
Note a relevant part from that article, referring to the Jewish court.
Quote:
The court cannot force anyone to come within its jurisdiction. But once someone agrees to settle a dispute in the Beth Din, he or she is bound in English law to abide by the court's decision.
This is because under English law people may devise their own way to settle a dispute before an agreed third party.
Crucially, the legislation does not insist that settlements must be based on English law; all that matters is the outcome is reasonable and both parties agree to the process. And it's in this space that religious courts, applying the laws of another culture, are growing in the UK.
A nations laws, generally speaking, are reflective of the overall morals and principles of its citizens. The more proportion of Islamic, Bhuddist, Pastafarian, Rigist, or whatever beliefs in a society, the more laws are going to inevitably change to reflect that shift.
NTM
__________________
A man only needs two tools in life. WD-40 and duct tape. If it moves and it shouldn't, use the duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should, use WD-40.
Note a relevant part from that article, referring to the Jewish court.
Quote:
The court cannot force anyone to come within its jurisdiction. But once someone agrees to settle a dispute in the Beth Din, he or she is bound in English law to abide by the court's decision.
This is because under English law people may devise their own way to settle a dispute before an agreed third party.
Crucially, the legislation does not insist that settlements must be based on English law; all that matters is the outcome is reasonable and both parties agree to the process. And it's in this space that religious courts, applying the laws of another culture, are growing in the UK.
And who is going to check if they really agree of their own free will or are coerced by peer pressure or whatever?
But anyway, I still think this is a form of cantonisation and not multi-culturalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by California Tanker
A nations laws, generally speaking, are reflective of the overall morals and principles of its citizens. The more proportion of Islamic, Bhuddist, Pastafarian, Rigist, or whatever beliefs in a society, the more laws are going to inevitably change to reflect that shift.
NTM
You are still missing my point. What I object to is not so much that the law might be changed (many Muslims as do many Christians here would like to re-ban gay marriage for instance). What I object to is the principle of different laws for different people. There is no such thing in Lebanon for instance, which has 11 different Muslim and Christian sects. Why the hell should we adopt it?
It does not surprise me that a raging socialist has trouble understanding human behavior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watser?
And who is going to check if they really agree of their own free will or are coerced by peer pressure or whatever?
That is a terribly stupid question.
Who?? Well, for starters, the people who currently coerce everybody else to follow the law: the police.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watser?
What I object to is the principle of different laws for different people. There is no such thing in Lebanon for instance, which has 11 different Muslim and Christian sects. Why the hell should we adopt it?
Well, for starters, possibly for the same reason that in Lebanon they have Lebanese law and in the U.K. they have UKinese law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watser?
There is no way on Earth I will ever agree to any aspect of Shari'a law being adopted in this country. One law for everybody is the core of what makes this a free society,
???? Are you all there???
How do you reconcile your moral principles give the more than blatantly obvious reality such as the fact that the entirety of humanity is NOT subjugated under one unique legal system????????????
[Not only are you stupid but you really have trouble noticing obvious reality and you base your morality on nonsense.]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watser?
it is way more important than the whole 'one man, one vote' thing.
No, it is not.
Your vote means nothing and makes no difference.
The restrictions placed upon you when you might want to negotiate and arbitrate disputes has more influence on your life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watser?
Not that anyone in this country has suggested anything like this AFAIK.
Well, in that case, only the people in "this country" are a free society and everybody else in "that country" must not be free because in "that country" they do not have the same law as they do in "this country" and yadda yadda Whatever? yadda yadda
Man, you are stupider than I thought.
-----
When a couple negotiates an out-of-court divorce settlement (also with many other out-of-court settlements, for that matter), they are applying a similar principle -- the two can both agree to follow Sharia law in their settlement or they can follow any law they want. If the two can not come to an agreement, there is always the threat of going to a state court, having an expensive trial and the embarrassment of airing out their dirty laundry.
The Archbishop is only recognizing the obvious reality that people can have anybody (even if that includes an Imam) arbitrate an out-of-State-court settlement.
__________________
Fight cyber with cyber and initiate no aggression.
Absolutely I agree that Sharia law should not be 'adopted' by the UK's legal system.
However, I fully support alternative dispute resolution and private mediation, as long as all parties consent and agree to be bound, so I wouldn't have a problem with competent adults agreeing to have civil conflicts adjudicated in a forum of their choosing, outside of the secular legal system. Whatever floats yer boat.
Note a relevant part from that article, referring to the Jewish court.
Quote:
The court cannot force anyone to come within its jurisdiction. But once someone agrees to settle a dispute in the Beth Din, he or she is bound in English law to abide by the court's decision.
This is because under English law people may devise their own way to settle a dispute before an agreed third party.
Crucially, the legislation does not insist that settlements must be based on English law; all that matters is the outcome is reasonable and both parties agree to the process. And it's in this space that religious courts, applying the laws of another culture, are growing in the UK.
A nations laws, generally speaking, are reflective of the overall morals and principles of its citizens. The more proportion of Islamic, Bhuddist, Pastafarian, Rigist, or whatever beliefs in a society, the more laws are going to inevitably change to reflect that shift.
NTM
I am as leery of religious law taking hold as can be- but noting the bolded and italicised parts, I wonder what the difference between these "courts" and an agreed-upon mediator would be?
I would really need to know more about what kind of enforcability there would be- would the acceptable punishments, etc, still be required to fall within the law of the land? If yes, then I see no problem. If it gets into the extreme aspects of things- honour killings, etc, then I have a problem, as I do with any death penalty situation.
One would presume that such arrangements would be valid only if the verdicts handed down by special religious/cultural courts did not violate existing UK law. i.e. Insisting that you split your assets in a certain way during divorce would be acceptable, but confining someone indefinitely or subjecting them to life-threatening assault would not.
What I object to is the principle of different laws for different people. There is no such thing in Lebanon for instance, which has 11 different Muslim and Christian sects. Why the hell should we adopt it?
Well, for starters, possibly for the same reason that in Lebanon they have Lebanese law and in the U.K. they have UKinese law.
Good grief....
I don't know why I bother, but....
Yes. In Lebanon they have Lebanese law. In all of Lebanon. For everyone. That's the whole point of having different countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Samuel8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watser?
There is no way on Earth I will ever agree to any aspect of Shari'a law being adopted in this country. One law for everybody is the core of what makes this a free society,
???? Are you all there???
How do you reconcile your moral principles give the more than blatantly obvious reality such as the fact that the entirety of humanity is NOT subjugated under one unique legal system????????????
That is exactly my point, mr genius. If you want to live in a country where the shari'a is the basis of the law, move there. I am not saying everyone should live under the same law, never have. Just that in this country there is ONE law for everyone. It is not too hard.
Sharia Law? How can I put this gently? No fucking way! There is no room for religious-based law in a secular society, especially not the barbarism that is Sharia! Want Sharia Law? Fuck off to Iran or Saudi Arabia.
__________________
There you go with them negative waves ... Why can't you say something righteous and beautiful for a change?
I'm pretty much with ms_ann, Caligulette, and Farren on this one. I have absolutely no problem with the option to resolve issues out of court with the aid of any mediator all parties agree to, Sharia or otherwise. I'm absolutely opposed to an extrajudicial Sharia court being able to impose judgments that conflict with secular law, however, and I'm leery of individuals, particularly women, being pressured to submit to this sort of judgment rather than ordinary secular judgment.
__________________
"Trans Am Jesus" is "what hanged me"
That is the real danger Adam: women are viewed as property in Islam generally and in Sharia in particular. Allowing that would put us back to where we were prior to the 1960s.
__________________
There you go with them negative waves ... Why can't you say something righteous and beautiful for a change?
... as long as all parties consent and agree to be bound ...
Question is ... how does one determine that a particular individual (especially a woman) is consenting and not coerced?
__________________ Of Courtesy, it is much less than Courage of Heart or Holiness. Yet in my walks it seems to me that the Grace of God is in Courtesy.
... as long as all parties consent and agree to be bound ...
Question is ... how does one determine that a particular individual (especially a woman) is consenting and not coerced?
Exactly my problem with this kind of thing. There is a lot of that going on already with some Muslim men not allowing their wives and/or daughters from leaving the house (check the German Turkish movie 40 Square Meter Germany/40 Quadtratmeter Deutschland).
It will be very hard to determine in some cases whether they are going ahead with it of their own free will or because of pressure from their families (or the community in general) or even under threat of violence.
Btw I don't think this will only be a problem with Islam either, there have been stories about women in the Jewish Orthodox community being locked away from the world and I can definitely imagine this kind of thing opening the door for cults of all kinds having their own laws.
Jewish Orthodoxy is a very closed society for women, to be sure, and it is not pleasant in many cases. So is Mormon Polygamy. Generally speaking, fundamentalist religions of any stripe are not so hot for the femme.
There is, however, even in secular society, a lot of pressure put upon people to stay in really bad situations.
I realise that in more closed societies the pressure is enormous, and do have huge concerns about domestic (ie, household) issues as far as the law goes (any law), and do not deny that there will be problems, some serious. There would indeed need to be ways to guarantee the rights of everyone involved. It is not a simple issue by any means.
However, the benefits of recognizing the mediation have to be considered as well. As with any recent immigrant population, Muslims have been demonised. In light of 9/11, they have been perhapse more so than many groups. They are constantly looked at in many major media outlets, and by xenophobes in general as the Other- and a dangerous Other at that. There has been a wholesale rejection of them by a large segment of the Western populations where they have gone. FOR THE MOST PART, however, they are just plain people trying to make a better life as has been the case with immigrants since immigrants began immigrating.
To have a part of their normal culture given an official nod could go yards in defusing the building tensions. It could actually take away some of the power of the more fanatical elements who like to insist that they are all oppressed and must wage war against anyone who goes against them. Not all Imams are crazed bombers, and people wanting a saner, calmer life would appeal to the saner, calmer elements given that chance.
Jewish Orthodoxy is a very closed society for women, to be sure, and it is not pleasant in many cases. So is Mormon Polygamy. Generally speaking, fundamentalist religions of any stripe are not so hot for the femme.
There is, however, even in secular society, a lot of pressure put upon people to stay in really bad situations.
I realise that in more closed societies the pressure is enormous, and do have huge concerns about domestic (ie, household) issues as far as the law goes (any law), and do not deny that there will be problems, some serious. There would indeed need to be ways to guarantee the rights of everyone involved. It is not a simple issue by any means.
However, the benefits of recognizing the mediation have to be considered as well. As with any recent immigrant population, Muslims have been demonised. In light of 9/11, they have been perhapse more so than many groups. They are constantly looked at in many major media outlets, and by xenophobes in general as the Other- and a dangerous Other at that. There has been a wholesale rejection of them by a large segment of the Western populations where they have gone. FOR THE MOST PART, however, they are just plain people trying to make a better life as has been the case with immigrants since immigrants began immigrating.
I am very much aware of all that, as I'm sure you know. I do think it is a good idea to keep lines of communication open. I don't even have a problem with religious leaders mediating as such. I do have a problem with binding agreements, even if the parties agree to being bound by them beforehand. But what I have a problem with most of all is giving a religious 'court' authority over people, even if it is by their consent. And as I have said: the fact that there are different laws for different people. I think it is bad enough that doctors have their own 'courts' that deal with malpractice, or that priests have a special status that for instance journalists do not have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caligulette
To have a part of their normal culture given an official nod could go yards in defusing the building tensions. It could actually take away some of the power of the more fanatical elements who like to insist that they are all oppressed and must wage war against anyone who goes against them. Not all Imams are crazed bombers, and people wanting a saner, calmer life would appeal to the saner, calmer elements given that chance.
I am not opposed to Muslims having part of their normal culture given an official nod, I just don't think this should be it. We have Muslim schools, there are Arab and Turkish stores, there is a Muslim broadcasting company that has its own programs on public tv (although most of them watch Turkish and Arab tv via satellite), there are all kinds of ways they keep the culture alive and I do think that's perfectly alright. This is not IMO.
Watser? draws a line in the sand
Re: Watser? draws a line in the sand
Linear Mode
