Great Britain or Little Iran?

[yguy]

Sharia law courts operating in Britain - Telegraph

Five sharia courts have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester and Nuneaton, Warwickshire. The government has quietly sanctioned that their rulings are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. Previously, the rulings were not binding and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

[...]

The disclosures come after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, sparked a national debate and calls for his resignation for saying that the establishment of sharia in the future "seems unavoidable" in Britain.

If this isn't evidence of the value of "religious tolerance", I don't know what is.

[Dragar]

I did some research on this, because Rowan Williams seems a smart chap, if a bit prone to making statements the media can easily misrepresent (he's an academic, after all).

Rowan's original idea, that was so badly mocked and misrepresented, was simply this. In many British courts, the idea is that the court itself should be a last resort. It's far more appropriate, and often a better use of taxpayer's money, for those involved to work out the dispute without the courts ruling. Instead they will often come to an agreement beforehand. Often the judge can even appoint someone to work out an agreement for both parties. Rowan's idea that was so misrepresented was that this 'arbitration' should take into account Muslim rules and values when both parties want it.

And this smart idea has been implemented. I hope everyone has read the important part from the article:

The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Sharia law is being forced on nobody; it's simply an option for Muslims to have their legal disputes resolved with reference to their own religious codes and practies. I rather suspect similar things must exist for other religious groups in the UK. I bet, for instance, there is a Jewish equivilent. It's a nice move, and I applaud it.

[Watser?]

It would not be little Iran but Little Saudi Arabia anyway. You know? The US' bestest buddy in the Middle East, that always somehow seems to escape all the scathing criticism that Iran gets?

[D. Scarlatti]

We call it alternative dispute resolution here. It's intended to forestall more traditional litigation (read: costly, tying up court resources better devoted elsewhere, etc.), which nevertheless always remains an option. But I can understand it meaning something completely different to a paranoid internet troll.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Watser?

It would not be little Iran but Little Saudi Arabia anyway. You know? The US' bestest buddy in the Middle East, that always somehow seems to escape all the scathing criticism that Iran gets?

See, you foreigners just don't understand. Iran is a brutal theocratic dictatorship and a major exporter of Islamic fundamentalism. Saudi Arabia is where Aramco is. They're totally different things, you idiot!

[ManM]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Sharia law is being forced on nobody; it's simply an option for Muslims to have their legal disputes resolved with reference to their own religious codes and practies. I rather suspect similar things must exist for other religious groups in the UK. I bet, for instance, there is a Jewish equivilent. It's a nice move, and I applaud it.

Do the judgments that arise from the Sharia law trump British law? In other words, if a person agrees to arbitration by Sharia law, and then later finds out he will have his hand chopped off, will the British authorities have a say?

[Naru]

My mother and sister volunteer at Dispute Settlement Center. I wonder if yguy will start referring to North Carolina as "Littler Iran"?

[D. Scarlatti]

No, because the American judicial system is already copied in its entirety from the Bible.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by yguy

Sharia law courts operating in Britain - Telegraph

Five sharia courts have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester and Nuneaton, Warwickshire. The government has quietly sanctioned that their rulings are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. Previously, the rulings were not binding and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

[...]

The disclosures come after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, sparked a national debate and calls for his resignation for saying that the establishment of sharia in the future "seems unavoidable" in Britain.

If this isn't evidence of the value of "religious tolerance", I don't know what is.

Typical overblown yguy post - short on facts, and long on trolling.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Sharia law is being forced on nobody; it's simply an option for Muslims to have their legal disputes resolved with reference to their own religious codes and practies. I rather suspect similar things must exist for other religious groups in the UK. I bet, for instance, there is a Jewish equivilent. It's a nice move, and I applaud it.

There is. The Jewish Beth Din courts in the UK have the same civil law option.

Originally Posted by ManM

Do the judgments that arise from the Sharia law trump British law? In other words, if a person agrees to arbitration by Sharia law, and then later finds out he will have his hand chopped off, will the British authorities have a say?

Refer to the article for the term "civil proceedings" as distinguished from "criminal proceedings."

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

No, because the American judicial system is already copied in its entirety from the Bible.

Joshua was the first activist Judge. Pass it on.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by ManM

Do the judgments that arise from the Sharia law trump British law? In other words, if a person agrees to arbitration by Sharia law, and then later finds out he will have his hand chopped off, will the British authorities have a say?

That can't apply. It's for civil, not criminal, matters.

Why not read the Arbitration Act 1996 and see what powers the Arbitration court will have? I do not think they will have powers to cause physical harm to a person. Especially since the court can revoke the Arbiters powers if they rule in such a way that causes a grave injustice (chopping off someone's hand is almost certainly such a ruling).

This isn't a dual legal system; it's an addition to an already existing set of options for resolving disputes.

[godfry n. glad]

So...yguy is actively spreading malicious misinformation.

In the context, I'm tempted to call it a "hate crime".

Don't give him so much credit. Just call it "typically stupid" and leave it at that.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Dragar

And this smart idea has been implemented.

Actually it's a thunderously stupid idea, because anyone who would choose to live under Sharia law is mentally ill. What you have accomplished, therefore, is to make your country a breeding ground for mental illness.

Won't be long before you guys are bowing to Mecca 5 times a day and thinking you're doing it of your own free will.

[godfry n. glad]

This is the reason I cry for my country. When senselessly raging pinheads like yguy have waaaaaay too much influence upon the gullible and greedy, we end up balanced at the precipice of a slide into totalitarianism.

These are the people to whom the zealots of contending societies point and note that we are steadfast in destroying them and their world. They are, in part, a source in the rise of hatred and terrorism directed at us.

There, there. We're not balanced at the precipice of anything right now. Just wait a moment; the wind really starts to pick up here!

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by yguy

Actually it's a thunderously stupid idea, because anyone who would choose to live under Sharia law is mentally ill. What you have accomplished, therefore, is to make your country a breeding ground for mental illness.

Won't be long before you guys are bowing to Mecca 5 times a day and thinking you're doing it of your own free will.

I wondered why I started wiping my ass with my left hand!

[Kael]

Originally Posted by yguy

Actually it's a thunderously stupid idea, because anyone who would choose to live under Sharia law is mentally ill. What you have accomplished, therefore, is to make your country a breeding ground for mental illness.

Won't be long before you guys are bowing to Mecca 5 times a day and thinking you're doing it of your own free will.

It makes just as much sense to say that anyone who thinks homosexuality is caused by the influence of evil spirits is mentally ill. More sense, in fact, as people have actually been institutionalized for similar claims. Now, we know this is what you think, so allowing you the freedom to speak this nonsense is obviously fostering a breeding ground for similar mental illnesses, no? I guess it won't be long before we're sending our gays to their own 'de-gayification' institutions, and imprisoning (or perhaps stoning?) those that don't come out straight as a ruler, will it?

P.S. I like that term, 'de-gayification'. I think I'll draw up some design plans and copyright them, so if ever you and your fanatical ilk do take over, I can at least make some bank being commissioned by the New Holy Order to build 'de-gayification camps' for them.

Originally Posted by ChuckF

I wondered why I started wiping my ass with my left hand!

What about us southpaws? Do we have to wipe with our left hand, too? That's discrimination. Or maybe I should be quiet, in case someone decides to declare left-handed people possessed by evil and to be branded and shunned.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Kael

What about us southpaws? Do we have to wipe with our left hand, too? That's discrimination. Or maybe I should be quite, in case someone decides to declare left-handed people possessed by evil and to be branded and shunned.

We already know all you "southpaws" are handily sinister to the core.

[ChuckF]

I want to boo and clap at the same time.

[Kael]

One day, left-handed people will rule the world.
*raises left fist*

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by yguy

Actually it's a thunderously stupid idea, because anyone who would choose to live under Sharia law is mentally ill.

Uh, wrong.

Thanks for playing our live internet game of "What's That, Troll?"

We're all out of consolation prizes, though.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I did some research on this, because Rowan Williams seems a smart chap, if a bit prone to making statements the media can easily misrepresent (he's an academic, after all).

Didn't we quickly come to this conclusion at the time that Williams made his remarks, many months ago?

Maybe YGuy wasn't paying attention.

NTM

[Dragar]

I believe we all agreed it seemed likely a media misrepresentation; I don't think I had actually understood the specifics of the system he was advocating until now.