NationStates Jolt Archive

Before certain... excitable posters create a wonky OP on this, I thought I’d post my own.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has come under fire after appearing to back the adoption of Sharia law in the UK...

Dr Rowan Williams told BBC Radio 4 he believed the adoption of some Sharia law in the UK seemed “unavoidable”.

Dr Williams said the UK had to “face up to the fact” some citizens did not relate to the British legal system.

He said adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law could help social cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court...

Dr Williams said Muslims should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.

In an interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, he argued this relied on Sharia law being better understood. At the moment, he said “sensational reporting of opinion polls” clouded the issue.

He stressed “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”.

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7233335.stm)
I think this is a very interesting turn of events, especially considering Williams’ previous support (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6293115.stm) for Catholic adoption agencies to be exempt from laws on adoption by gay couples.

Personally, I feel that this leads us down a unsettling path of exemption from the law under religious grounds. Williams’ comments that it is dangerous that “there’s one law for everybody... and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts” are extremely worrying.

Thoughts?

In before the Islamophobes post anything hysterical.

*awaits the coming fire*

*awaits the coming fire*

It'll definitely be a show, that's for sure.

*starts passing out marshmallows, graham crackers, and chocolate*

Like a Chinese Menu for law? Take one from column A and two from column B and if you don't like what's in column C, ignore it. Sorry, don't buy it.

If they want to handle it the way the Catholic Church does divorce and annulment, it might work. It just gives them an extra set of hoops to jump through, though.

The main problem is where you draw the line and how the government resolves issues that encompass much more than cultural disputes. Personally, given the anachronisms and other issues associated with any kind of religious law, I'd say it's best that the laws enacted by the government come first. It's just too risky to hand over significant legal power to any religious authority, especially one with as many contemporary issues as Sharia.

(Of course, I personally see this as a clever move to obtain similar permissions for Christians by using Muslims as the test case more than anything else.)

The main problem is where you draw the line and how the government resolves issues that encompass much more than cultural disputes. Personally, given the anachronisms and other issues associated with any kind of religious law, I'd say it's best that the laws enacted by the government come first. It's just too risky to hand over significant legal power to any religious authority, especially one with as many contemporary issues as Sharia.

(Of course, I personally see this as a clever move to obtain similar permissions for Christians by using Muslims as the test case more than anything else.)

Well said.

If it's compatible with British law, fine.

If you're on about changing British law to allow forced marriages, kindly piss off over to Iran and enjoy yourself. Sharia law, Christian law, I really couldn't give a stuff.

That is all.

Of course, I personally see this as a clever move to obtain similar permissions for Christians by using Muslims as the test case more than anything else.
That’s what struck me the most; it’s a clever play by Williams, even if he is getting slated for it. Predictably, the UK tabloids haven’t been too kind on the Archbishop, The Sun leading the pack with “What A Burkha”.

Like a Chinese Menu for law? Take one from column A and two from column B and if you don’t like what’s in column C, ignore it. Sorry, don’t buy it.
Quite.

If they want to handle it the way the Catholic Church does divorce and annulment, it might work. It just gives them an extra set of hoops to jump through, though.
There’s already scope in UK law, indeed the courts encourage it, for civil disputes between two consenting parties to be settled outside of court. The Jewish beth din system is one example of a religious court that already exists in the UK.

But, and this is one massive but, the beth din system submits totally to UK law; annulment of marriages between Jewish couples, for example, is done in a civil law court, but under Jewish law there needs to be a further religiously-linked settlement made. The beth din is in no way an alternative to the UK legal system, something which Williams seems to be suggesting would be the case with Sharia courts.

A further point some are making is that certain parties (women in particular) would not get a fair hearing under Sharia, and so disputes settled using this system would be totally inadequate.

He's an idiot and his idea is ridiculous.

I hate how this is used to bash muslims though. It's a stunningly infantile issue.

Seems to me that this is a good argument to remove all religion from British instutions and become a fully secular society.

Seems to me that this is a good argument to remove all religion from British instutions and become a fully secular society.

The current Defender of the Faith (y'know, ol' 'beth the second?) might disagree with you rather strongly.

Besides, C of E or not, British law is surprisingly secular. As a society we're probably more secular than the US with its constitutional prohibition on setting up an official church. Ironic, really.

Besides, C of E or not, British law is surprisingly secular. As a society we’re probably more secular than the US with its constitutional prohibition on setting up an official church.
True, but the likes of publicly-funded Faith Schools and an increasingly vocal minority calling for religious values to be instilled in education/law puts this off kilter.

It’s certainly not rampant, but I think we’ve seen fairly significant changes in how involved in politics different faiths have been in the UK over recent years.

The current Defender of the Faith (y'know, ol' 'beth the second?) might disagree with you rather strongly.


Well she probably doesn't share my republican views either.

Law should be a social tool, and it's punishments should reflect the individual giving back what they took out of the society for personal gain, so the 'judiciary' should not be a drain on the state, but simply a way of reinforcing and backing out the damages done to it by anti-social individuals. We need to do away with laws based on abstract liberal concepts of 'rights' and bourgeois property law etc, and abolish jurisprudence. We must recognize that law that has no basis in objective social reality (religious or idealist) has no place in society, law based on Marxism is the only way.

We need to do away with laws based on abstract liberal concepts of ‘rights’ and bourgeois property law etc, and abolish jurisprudence.
Eh?

I understand your rationale for doing away with rights and property law, but what’s your reasoning behind abolishing the study of the philosophy of law?

If my short time interacting with law students/lawyers and studying jurisprudence itself (a fascinating subject, about which Marx has a huge amount to say; he was an accomplished philosopher of law) has taught me anything, it's that lawyers/magistrates need more study of jurisprudence, not less.

Or do you mean something else by ‘jurisprudence’?

Eh?

I understand your rationale for doing away with rights and property law, but what’s your reasoning behind abolishing the study of the philosophy of law?

Or do you mean something else by ‘jurisprudence’?

I mean the meta psychical common law system which is ultimately basis on anti-materialist religious concepts, and holds a liberal predisposition towards legal fetishism. 'Jurisprudence' in socialism would be aimed towards upholding the dictatorship of the proletariat, rather than the bourgeois.

Law in the capitalist mode of production is a instrument of class oppression perpetuated as a consequence of its particular historical, social and economic structures. Modern Contract, Commercial and Property law in this case are merely extensions of bourgeois class domination.

I mean the meta psychical common law system which is ultimately basis on anti-materialist religious concepts, and holds a liberal predisposition towards legal fetishism.
Well, that’s the system of common law, not the study of the philosophy of law.

‘Jurisprudence’ in socialism would be aimed towards upholding the dictatorship of the proletariat, rather than the bourgeois.
Hopefully, jurisprudence in any system would not be ‘aimed’ at anything, it would simply be a studious discussion of the philosophy of law, and the best way to have a genuinely fair legal system.

Even more reason no to bend the law to the whims of a religious/political group, whether they be a minority or majority.

As Chumblywumbly mentioned earlier, provision already exists for certain types of disputes to be settled outside of the normal court system. That's all well and good, but we must prevent any such system being seen as somehow 'above' the laws of the land. As long as whatever rules and/or practices might be adopted do not contradict national law I have no issue with any of it but, to my mind, national law must be purely secular if it is to treat all those subject to it as being equal.

I also find myself agreeing with some of the cynicism in earlier posts - Williams' comments are probably designed to get further recognition of religious 'laws' for people of Islamic faith, as a precursor to getting similar concessions for Christians.

On a slight tangent... the thing that has annoyed me most during the near-blanket coverage of this issue since it broke yesterday is the succession of MPs and other such worthies popping up on TV to spout off about how "all people must be treated equally under the law". Every time I hear it I start to recall the myriad instances where they themselves have pushed for tweaks to legislation that exempt them from this, that or the other, and my blood pressure goes up another notch. Hypocrites.

I can't wait to see the Mail's headline at the station today.:D

On a slight tangent... the thing that has annoyed me most during the near-blanket coverage of this issue since it broke yesterday is the succession of MPs and other such worthies popping up on TV to spout off about how “all people must be treated equally under the law”. Every time I hear it I start to recall the myriad instances where they themselves have pushed for tweaks to legislation that exempt them from this, that or the other, and my blood pressure goes up another notch. Hypocrites.
How, sadly, true.

All equal under the law, unless your a terrorism suspect, then we can do away with such legal niceties as habeas corpus and a decent defence.

I can’t wait to see the Mail’s headline at the station today.:D
It’s disappointingly pun-free.

The Sun‘s is the best so far.

How, sadly, true.

All equal under the law, unless your a terrorism suspect, then we can do away with such legal niceties as habeas corpus and a decent defence.
Oh come on. Just as long as we're safe, who cares about the constant mass surveillance and suspension of the judiciary? I trust the Home Secretary to use his or her arbitary powers wisely. Who wouldn't?

It’s disappointingly pun-free.

The Sun‘s is the best so far.
Aww.

Thoughts?
Hrm. The reason British law is not respected is not that the law itself is in any way flawed (though it is, in some areas) but that people are disaffected by Britain as an institution. I think Williams sees that. But you're not going to help people become more involved just by arbitrarily bending its rules in accommodation of certain lifestyles. That's fragmenting and segregating, which is exactly the wrong approach to take.

The problem is that as a representative of a necessarily fragmenting and segregating movement, Williams is obliged to adopt this position. We do need to take a good look at where, exactly, religion fits in to our society, and I guess he's done us a bit of a service in bringing this to our attention; albeit in a rather sneaky way.

On a slight tangent... the thing that has annoyed me most during the near-blanket coverage of this issue since it broke yesterday is the succession of MPs and other such worthies popping up on TV to spout off about how "all people must be treated equally under the law". Every time I hear it I start to recall the myriad instances where they themselves have pushed for tweaks to legislation that exempt them from this, that or the other, and my blood pressure goes up another notch. Hypocrites.
The Freedom of Information Act springs to mind. And will all this recent disclosures about Labour donations and Tories employing their wives and renting out taxpayer's property, I think that MPs way well want to demand more privacy from the unwashed masses.

On a slight tangent... the thing that has annoyed me most during the near-blanket coverage of this issue since it broke yesterday is the succession of MPs and other such worthies popping up on TV to spout off about how "all people must be treated equally under the law". Every time I hear it I start to recall the myriad instances where they themselves have pushed for tweaks to legislation that exempt them from this, that or the other, and my blood pressure goes up another notch. Hypocrites.

Totally agree with this.

And to the OP, I don't really know the details of how Sharia deals with the marriage and finance situations he was meaning, but as long as it has equality between sexes etc. and doesn't go above and deny tenets of British law, then I see no problem of it as an extra law. We're not talking about becoming an Islamic state (I think the papers have most likely blown things out of proportion), it's about having a procedure run by say, the Muslim Council, for people to go through to settle things if they want to. Certainly not all Muslims will require it and some would proceed through just the British system.

Having said that, it should be based in the religion, not the culture they came from, if it is to be comparable to the Jewish version.

Hrm. The reason British law is not respected is not that the law itself is in any way flawed (though it is, in some areas) but that people are disaffected by Britain as an institution. I think Williams sees that. But you're not going to help people become more involved just by arbitrarily bending its rules in accommodation of certain lifestyles. That's fragmenting and segregating, which is exactly the wrong approach to take.
I'd argue that the biggest threat to Britian as an institution comes from English/Scottish nationalism rather than religion, and that creating different institutions of law for different religions is far more segregating than liberalising law so that everybody is equally accommodated.

The current Defender of the Faith (y'know, ol' 'beth the second?) might disagree with you rather strongly.


So what? It's not like the crown has any power at all. Parliament is the only ruling body.

Law should be a social tool, and it's punishments should reflect the individual giving back what they took out of the society for personal gain, so the 'judiciary' should not be a drain on the state, but simply a way of reinforcing and backing out the damages done to it by anti-social individuals. We need to do away with laws based on abstract liberal concepts of 'rights' and bourgeois property law etc, and abolish jurisprudence. We must recognize that law that has no basis in objective social reality (religious or idealist) has no place in society, law based on Marxism is the only way.

What's wrong with the concepts of rights? I say that everyone should have the right to be free, so long as it doesn't interfere with others right to be free. I see what you are referring to, but I think there SHOULD be universal rights, which cannot be taken away. There can be no justification for taking someones freedom away using your theory of society managing its own rights, through the interaction of the individual and the society. This approach easily allows for the enslavement of the weaker by the stronger, for instance. This anarchistic way has no place in soceity.

I trust the Home Secretary to use his or her arbitary powers wisely. Who wouldn’t?
Traitors and terrorists, obviously.

Aww.
It is a rather poor showing on the Mail‘s part; their punnery is the one diamond in the mire of filth they produce.


We’re not talking about becoming an Islamic state (I think the papers have most likely blown things out of proportion), it’s about having a procedure run by say, the Muslim Council, for people to go through to settle things if they want to. Certainly not all Muslims will require it and some would proceed through just the British system.
This system is already in place, and as Williams in all likelihood knows this it’s confusing as to what he thinks should be further done.

As I have said, it seems to be a way of advocating exemption from the law under religious considerations.

I'd argue that the biggest threat to Britian as an institution comes from English/Scottish nationalism rather than religion, and that creating different institutions of law for different religions is far more segregating than liberalising law so that everybody is equally accommodated.
Scots Law is already different in key areas, and has been since before the Union.

I'd argue that the biggest threat to Britian as an institution comes from English/Scottish nationalism rather than religion...
Bigger, perhaps, but that doesn't mean it's the only one.

...and that creating different institutions of law for different religions is far more segregating than liberalising law so that everybody is equally accommodated.
Neither is a good idea. The law should be based on dialogue, yes, but not on the "Common Denominator". Our system of laws is there to prevent people from overstepping their boundaries and infringing on the rights of other people, and it does not make sense to maintain such a system if we allow anyone's dislike of it to arbitrarily redefine their own standing. There is little point in a state if it only legislates on what everyone can quite happily agree on anyway.

Bigger, perhaps, but that doesn't mean it's the only one.
If the closest religious threat to Britian comes from the Archbishop of Canterbury suggesting that we should adopt some parts of Sharia law and everybody disagreeing (I've yet to find anybody agree wit him), then I don't see how it's much of an immediate threat to the UK as an institution.

Neither is a good idea. The law should be based on dialogue, yes, but not on the "Common Denominator". Our system of laws is there to prevent people from overstepping their boundaries and infringing on the rights of other people, and it does not make sense to maintain such a system if we allow anyone's dislike of it to arbitrarily redefine their own standing. There is little point in a state if it only legislates on what everyone can quite happily agree on anyway.
I think you miss my point, which was on segregation. I can't see how having one law for everybody, which can be made as open and accommodating as possible within the current legal framework, is any more segregating that creating separate legal systems with different laws for different religions, in effect creating a state within a state. I don't think, however, that we are yet in a situation where everybody dislikes our current law and legal system precisely because it is, generally speaking, liberal and accommodating.

Thoughts?

So basically, this guy wants a Millet system? I hope he knows that bit the Ottomans in the ass during the decline. I'm afraid I'm going to have to vote "no" for the Archbishop's proposal. Democracies are build on the principle of "Rule of Law", which means no one is above or below the law, for whatever reason.

This system is already in place, and as Williams in all likelihood knows this it’s confusing as to what he thinks should be further done.

As I have said, it seems to be a way of advocating exemption from the law under religious considerations.

Hmm, interesting. I suppose he might be pushing for religious exemptions in an odd way, but he's being very fearmongering about it. He didn't specify much of what would be included in the new law, but if such a system already exists for alternative settlements, then he is meaning subjecting everyone to some parts of Sharia law? That would be ridiculous to say.

Traitors and terrorists, obviously.
Defined as anybody who tries to pinch Harriet Harman's shoe collection.

It is a rather poor showing on the Mail‘s part; their punnery is the one diamond in the mire of filth they produce.
Well, it still makes me die a little inside.

Scots Law is already different in key areas, and has been since before the Union.
I know.:)

He didn’t specify much of what would be included in the new law, but if such a system already exists for alternative settlements, then he is meaning subjecting everyone to some parts of Sharia law? That would be ridiculous to say.
Especially for the head of the Anglican church.

I think it’s got a lot to do with issues closer to his own heart, such as his belief that Catholic (and presumably all Christian) institutions should be exempt from some aspects of sexual discrimination laws that prevent institutions discriminating on the basis of gender or sexuality; i.e. adoption agencies not taking into account the sexuality of prospective adoptive parents.

As Chumblywumbly mentioned earlier, provision already exists for certain types of disputes to be settled outside of the normal court system. That's all well and good, but we must prevent any such system being seen as somehow 'above' the laws of the land. As long as whatever rules and/or practices might be adopted do not contradict national law I have no issue with any of it but, to my mind, national law must be purely secular if it is to treat all those subject to it as being equal.


Reading the BBC news article on this issue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7233335.stm, Sharia law does already operate under these provisions, in a similar way to Jewish Orthodox law, i.e. disputes can be settled out of court by an agreed third party should both sides agree.

The whole idea of Sharia law 'replacing' civil law for areas such as (I quote) "We're looking at a very small aspect of Sharia for Muslim families when they choose to be governed with regards to their marriage, divorce, inheritance, custody of children and so forth." scares me and will only serve to further marginalise muslim women who have enough trouble as it is getting recourse under current laws which are meant to protect them, let alone should their families be able to bring the case in front of a court which will be inherently biased. And it doesn't matter if they have the right to appeal or refuse the court, because unless you can guarentee that their mother will still talk to them, their community won't reject them, their fathers or brothers won't threaten them and their sisters will still be allow to see them*, you can never say they truely have a choice.


* I must accord the wording of this argument to the amazing Asma Jahangir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asma_Jahangir) who I had the great privilege to hear talk on human rights a few weeks ago.

I'm impressed. Page 3 and we still haven't seen "The white man will be a minority in Britain!" or "The muslim hordes are rampaging across Europe!"

We had Sharia Law in Ontario for a few years, before all forms of religious arbitration were banned by the current government. As I recall, I'd never heard of any major incidents involving the tribunals - and there was certainly never a case of a woman being stoned. On the other hand, the chief opponents of Sharia Law in Ontario weren't white supremacists or islamophobes; they were female muslim activists. I don't know enough about Sharia to make blanket statements about biases it may have against women, among other things, but there seem to be people who oppose it on reasonable grounds.

For my part, I think the idea of one law applied to everyone isn't a great idea. Clearly, states are made up of different people who face different situations in their daily lives, and sometimes national law just doesn't meet their needs. As an earlier poster pointed out, Scottish law already differs slightly. I don't have a problem with a community handling its own legal disputes in a way that serves it best - provided it adheres to natural law (and in this sense, many - if not all - nation-states don't live up to that standard in one way or another).

When it ceases to apply to everyone in the nation, the nation's law becomes meaningless.

I am against any religious favoritism written into the law. The law should be secular, not rooted in any particular faith. Otherwise it is nothing even approaching just. In order for the law to function, people must believe it to be, for the most part, fair, not just something to be afraid of crossing for fear of the penalties.

I am religious myself, but I don't think my personal moral views should be written into the legal code.

I wonder two things:

a) How many here actually have a clear idea of what "Sharia Law" is and would be if applied in Britain?

b) How many here think that countries with both secular and religious legal systems working side by side, like Malaysia for example, have laws that are "meaningless"?

Don't get me wrong, I find it hard to warm to the idea (though the reason he brings it up seems a valid one), but the counter-arguments presented so far don't seem particularly strong.

I wonder two things:

a) How many here actually have a clear idea of what "Sharia Law" is and would be if applied in Britain?

b) How many here think that countries with both secular and religious legal systems working side by side, like Malaysia for example, have laws that are "meaningless"?

Don't get me wrong, I find it hard to warm to the idea (though the reason he brings it up seems a valid one), but the counter-arguments presented so far don't seem particularly strong.

Under Sharia law, women might find it much harder to get fairness in divorce. Believe whatever you want to believe about personal morals, but you have no right to enforce those beliefs on others.

Should Christians get their own set of laws as well and their own exemptions from national law?

I've decided to make a new religion. In my religion's laws, a mother has the right to take the lives of her children since she brought them into this world. Therefore I would like the state to let me and the adherents of my religion follow our own laws in this matter. Also, wearing leg warmers shall be punishable by death in my religion. We can handle this issue ourselves, we don't want any government interference in our religious traditions. Also, men and women can have as many spouses as they desire, and may buy the children of other members for their spouses, whether said children want to be spouses or not. I expect the state to recognize and respect our religious laws concerning marriage. Because we deserve special treatment, because we're a religion.

I wonder two things:

a) How many here actually have a clear idea of what "Sharia Law" is and would be if applied in Britain?

According to a muslim academic on the radio this morning. Among British Muslims there is no agreed concept, due to cultural differences within the muslim world.

I may have got this wrong as I was only half listening.

b) How many here think that countries with both secular and religious legal systems working side by side, like Malaysia for example, have laws that are "meaningless"?

Don't get me wrong, I find it hard to warm to the idea (though the reason he brings it up seems a valid one), but the counter-arguments presented so far don't seem particularly strong.

The other thing is that muslims make up a tiny proportion of the nation's population. And I'm skeptikal that a sizable proportion of the community would like a parrallel legal system based on Sharia law.

Simply put, I'm not convinced we should change the constitution to suit the desires of a small minority within a tiny minority.

Should Christians get their own set of laws as well and their own exemptions from national law?

I believe it has already been pointed out within the thread how Dr Williams feels about this topic ;)

So if a Jew married an Islamic person which particular religious parallel legal system would handle their divorce? Still I suppose at least he is upholding the tradition of Archbishops of Canterbury being complete fuckwits.

So if a Jew married an Islamic person which particular religious parallel legal system would handle their divorce?

Do you mean as the issue stands now?

They would get a civil divorce that would divorce them in the eyes the law.

Presumably which ever faith married them would carry out the ceremonial nicities.

Do you mean as the issue stands now?

They would get a civil divorce that would divorce them in the eyes the law.

Presumably which ever faith married them would carry out the ceremonial nicities.

Not now but under what Williams is suggesting. There should be one law that applies to everyone. If you have separate religious legal institutions there is always going to be some conflict or loophole for people to abuse.

As an earlier poster pointed out, Scottish law already differs slightly.
True, but there’s a major difference between a clearly defined region (arguably separate country) which has some differences in the way the law is understood, and separate laws for separate minorities.

Moreover, both Scots Law and UK Law have to comply with EU Human Rights legislation, etc.

According to a muslim academic on the radio this morning. Among British Muslims there is no agreed concept, due to cultural differences within the muslim world.

I may have got this wrong as I was only half listening.
If you were listening to the Today program on Radio 4, that’s what I heard too.

This is utter bollocks, which is exactly why he said it.

We don't want religious laws governing British law, because the times when it has have been extremely rubbish.

We don’t want religious laws governing British law, because the times when it has have been extremely rubbish.
True dat.

True, but there’s a major difference between a clearly defined region (arguably separate country) which has some differences in the way the law is understood, and separate laws for separate minorities.

Moreover, both Scots Law and UK Law have to comply with EU Human Rights legislation, etc.

Indeed, it isn't as if the McDonalds (say) next door from me would be charged under Scots law whilst I would be charge un English law for the same offence.

If you were listening to the Today program on Radio 4, that’s what I heard too.

R4 FTW!

Good to know I wasn't making it up :)

Never thought I'd say this, but... I'd prefer France. Secularism FTW.

True, but there’s a major difference between a clearly defined region (arguably separate country) which has some differences in the way the law is understood, and separate laws for separate minorities.

Moreover, both Scots Law and UK Law have to comply with EU Human Rights legislation, etc.

I actually agree with what you're saying. Communities (ie, provinces, counties, townships, what have you) which experience different circumstances and have unique concerns ought to have a legal code tailored to those circumstances and concerns, provided they adhere to natural law (Human Rights). Hypothetically, if there is a community in country X that wants to institute Sharia law, provided it maintains natural rights, I don't see the problem with it. However, like I said earlier, I'm not an expert on Sharia, so if it is discriminatory toward women (as I hear it is), it is not in keeping with natural law, and we have a different story altogether.

If the closest religious threat to Britian comes from the Archbishop of Canterbury suggesting that we should adopt some parts of Sharia law and everybody disagreeing (I've yet to find anybody agree wit him), then I don't see how it's much of an immediate threat to the UK as an institution.
The Threat is not that the church's effective top dog is making a suggestion; the threat is that an official and recognised representative of Religious organisations in the UK is implying that religious authority is above common law, and that where the law differs, it should change. Admittedly, it's something of a slippery slope argument to suggest that it will result in a more tangible problem, but even if we acknowledge that the CoE is somewhat passive in this view, it's something very concerning to see in an interest group of such prominence in this country.

I think you miss my point, which was on segregation. I can't see how having one law for everybody, which can be made as open and accommodating as possible within the current legal framework, is any more segregating that creating separate legal systems with different laws for different religions, in effect creating a state within a state. I don't think, however, that we are yet in a situation where everybody dislikes our current law and legal system precisely because it is, generally speaking, liberal and accommodating.
You're right, but what's being proposed is not lawmaking for the purpose of establishing a single coherent system of legislation; what's being suggested is the bending of that system because an apolitical interest group would rather do things their own way (albeit not actually proposed by that interest group itself). That's less segregating than different systems of law, but it's still more so than simply leaving things alone. Making special cases in law for difference serves to highlight such differences publicly rather than encourage community engagement. One example is homosexual marriage, which would be far less contentious an issue if we simply acknowledged marriage as being between two individuals rather than having to explicitly state the different procedures for straight and gay civil unions.

I mean the meta psychical common law system which is ultimately basis on anti-materialist religious concepts, and holds a liberal predisposition towards legal fetishism. 'Jurisprudence' in socialism would be aimed towards upholding the dictatorship of the proletariat, rather than the bourgeois.

Law in the capitalist mode of production is a instrument of class oppression perpetuated as a consequence of its particular historical, social and economic structures. Modern Contract, Commercial and Property law in this case are merely extensions of bourgeois class domination.

Awesome, has some programmer designed a "Marxist rant generator" to accompany the Postmodern essay generator (http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/)?

Before certain... excitable posters create a wonky OP on this, I thought I’d post my own.


I think this is a very interesting turn of events, especially considering Williams’ previous support (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6293115.stm) for Catholic adoption agencies to be exempt from laws on adoption by gay couples.

Personally, I feel that this leads us down a unsettling path of exemption from the law under religious grounds. Williams’ comments that it is dangerous that “there’s one law for everybody... and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts” are extremely worrying.

Thoughts?

Exempting anyone from a nations laws based on their flavor of religious laws is asking for problems. The Church of SusieQ could hypothetically set up a complete legal system outside of any national system and be expected to be allowed to use it as they see fit. If you open this door for any one religion it will be very hard to close it to others. jmo

Awesome, has some programmer designed a "Marxist rant generator" to accompany the Postmodern essay generator (http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/)?

Not yet, but they should!

They are in my country and if they dont like it they can fuck off to afghanistan.
I'm not being racist and in fact like the muslim religion a lot, but they should respect our laws and not expect us to change the laws just because five million of them turned up at my doorstep uninvited.

Rowan Williams can fuck off, as can any upptiy immigrants who deem our laws inferior to their own. They are more than entitled to return to their regressed anachronistic real country.

They are in my country and if they dont like it they can fuck off to afghanistan.
I'm not being racist and in fact like the muslim religion a lot, but they should respect our laws and not expect us to change the laws just because five million of them turned up at my doorstep uninvited.
Rowan Williams can fuck off, as can any upptiy immigrants who deem our laws inferior to their own. They are more than entitled to return to their regressed anachronistic real country.
Wait, what? Since when was this an immigration problem? This is about Religion, not immigrants.

Aww, and the thread was going so nicely as well...

They are in my country and if they dont like it they can fuck off to afghanistan.
Why would Rowan Williams want to go to Afghanistan?

Rowan Williams can fuck off, as can any upptiy immigrants who deem our laws inferior to their own. They are more than entitled to return to their regressed anachronistic real country.
This isn’t about immigrants at all, unless you’re suggesting that members of the Church of England can be classed as ‘uppity immigrants’.

What was it I said about excitable posters?

Wait, what? Since when was this an immigration problem? This is about Religion, not immigrants.

The issue does not arise without the presence of Islam, and Islam as a popular, significant faith in the UK is the result of immigration.

The issue does not arise without the presence of Islam
It quite clearly does (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6293115.stm).

I agree with Chris.

England legal system, historically, has been one of the greatest gifts the world has been given and has affected much/most of the world. To think that Sharia law, which is comparable to the scum of the univerise, could be compatible with UK law is just ridiculous.

Hey Islam! You don't like enlightend law? Here's a ticket to go back to your countries where you can enjoy being hundreds of years behind the rest of the world...

The issue does not arise without the presence of Islam, and Islam as a popular, significant faith in the UK is the result of immigration.

Yes <2 million.

Serious Shit!

Though I suppose that is another topic entirely. I'm not sure this obsession with muslims within the country is entirely warranted (or healthy, for both sides).

Hey Islam! You don't like enlightend law? Here's a ticket to go back to your countries where you can enjoy being hundreds of years behind the rest of the world...

I'm going to safely assume you don't listen to PM (geography blah, blah, blah).

If you did though, you would have heard some interesting (admittedly unrepresentative) vox pops.

i.e., Muslim women saying exactly the same thing as you :)

Under Sharia law, women might find it much harder to get fairness in divorce.
And would that part be implemented? Especially since both parties would have to agree to the dispute being brought before this system too...[/QUOTE]

Should Christians get their own set of laws as well and their own exemptions from national law?
Like the Jews have? Hmm... Maybe?

I've decided to make a new religion. In my religion's laws, a mother has the right to take the lives of her children since she brought them into this world. Therefore I would like the state to let me and the adherents of my religion follow our own laws in this matter. Also, wearing leg warmers shall be punishable by death in my religion. We can handle this issue ourselves, we don't want any government interference in our religious traditions. Also, men and women can have as many spouses as they desire, and may buy the children of other members for their spouses, whether said children want to be spouses or not. I expect the state to recognize and respect our religious laws concerning marriage. Because we deserve special treatment, because we're a religion.
*Cough*

Muhammed Abdul Bari, Secretary-General of the MCB, said: "The archbishop is not advocating implementation of the Islamic penal system in Britain.

"His recommendation is confined to the civil system of Sharia law, and only in accordance with English law and agreeable to established notions of human rights."
That would be the gist of it. As the Archbishop said himself:
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".
So implementing the penal system would be out of the question. I can't see that he's advocating allowing a legal system that would allow violations of Jus cogens either.

The issue does not arise without the presence of Islam, and Islam as a popular, significant faith in the UK is the result of immigration.
...and the jews?

Under Sharia law, women might find it much harder to get fairness in divorce. Believe whatever you want to believe about personal morals, but you have no right to enforce those beliefs on others.
Why would it be harder? Islamic writing is pretty clear when it comes to the rights of the woman in a marriage. IIRC, even not being satisfied sexually can be grounds for divorce there.

What I meant to point out is that a British Sharia Court could have sufficiently fair and liberal interpretations of Islamic law and actually record cases properly. As it is, many women are finding that countries that do have Sharia law don't recognise their civil divorces in countries like Britain, making it impossible to remarry from home, for example. Hell, some might not even recognise their own divorces.

As far as I can see, the problem with Sharia law is that some of it is pretty outdated, and that most countries that apply it are extremely male-dominated, ultra-conservative and usually autocratic societies. Britain isn't, so the interpretations of Islamic legal writing could differ. Malaysia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Malaysia) doesn't stone women to death or put gays to death, but because they have so many Muslims in the country, Islamic law plays a role there. Sharia laws only apply to Muslims (so no one's enforcing anything on others) and in criminal cases Sharia courts are only able to hand out fines. I don't see why that wouldn't be at least possible in the UK, as long as the court can win recognition from some of the more important Islamic scholars and institutions in the world (hence why this wouldn't be an easy thing to set up).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7235550.stm

Seems he's been widely misrepresented.

Besides, C of E or not, British law is surprisingly secular. As a society we're probably more secular than the US with its constitutional prohibition on setting up an official church. Ironic, really.

Maybe not. In England for many years, if you wanted to be religious, you had to be Anglican, even other Protestant groups were suspected of being "un-British." The Church also became associated with authority, and if you were going to stick it to the Man, attacking the Church was a good way to start.
The US, on the other hand, has had a history of political religious freedom for all and social religious freedom for most Protestants. Even the most die hard Christian Rightist is proud of their freedom of religion, although they still want to deny for others.

As for Williams: from what I've heard of Williams in the news, he seems to be too ecumenical. I didn't think such a thing was possible, but he appears to be too eager to please too many people's beliefs. As one of the most important leaders of the Church, he has to say things not only that people don't believe, but that they don't want to hear. As does any good leader, for that matter.

I have a great deal of respect for Britian.


That being said, if this happens, I will lose much of that respect.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7235550.stm

Seems he's been widely misrepresented.

It's more that people don't want to know what he's really saying...

I have a great deal of respect for Britian.


That being said, if this happens, I will lose much of that respect.

Why?

I have a great deal of respect for Britian.


That being said, if this happens, I will lose much of that respect.

What's to respect in the first place?
I live here, i wouldn't count it as a "bastion of freedom" or what you might choose to glorify the UK, really it's different from what the media tell you. The main issues are trying to find cheap housing and getting a job, as far as the average Bob is concerned, and that's not so easy.

What's to respect in the first place?
That you guys actually manage to eat Fish'n'chips wrapped in newspapers, or baked beans on toast, or spotted dick, or...

It's more that people don't want to know what he's really saying...
I'm still puzzling that one out. No matter how I try to translate it, it keeps coming back to "Religious views aren't paid enough attention in Legislation". I mean, if all he wanted to say was "The way this country works is responsible for our social fragmentation", which I would have been prepared to give him, then why appeal to law specifically, and why within the context of faith?

Maybe not. In England for many years, if you wanted to be religious, you had to be Anglican, even other Protestant groups were suspected of being "un-British." The Church also became associated with authority, and if you were going to stick it to the Man, attacking the Church was a good way to start.
The US, on the other hand, has had a history of political religious freedom for all and social religious freedom for most Protestants. Even the most die hard Christian Rightist is proud of their freedom of religion, although they still want to deny for others.
But as you said, it's history. I'll concede that it was that way before, but things have changed a great deal. Religiously motivated objections towards things like abortion and gay marriage are far less common in Britain than in America. Politicians here don't tend to speak about their religious credentials, they wouldn't dare. The situation a hundred odd years ago doesn't matter - what matters is that British society is far more secular than American society. Though not secular enough in my opinion. We need to disestablish the Church of England. Hopefully that quisling arsehole Rowan Williams will have made that more likely with his idiotic comments.

That you guys actually manage to eat Fish'n'chips wrapped in newspapers
Actually I don't think that's allowed any more due to health and safety. It's all new blank paper now that I've seen.

The idea of a religious civil court that is separate from the normal civil court is crazy. If the idea was even breached in the United States it would be condemned by the left, center, and most of the right. Even if it somehow passed it would be declared unconstitutional because of the First Amendment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7235550.stm

Seems he's been widely misrepresented.

Rowan writes and speaks in an incredibly rambling and vague style, so it can be very hard to figure out what he's really trying to say (his speech a few weeks ago on the blasphemy law is an excellent example: he begins by agreeing that free speech requires the repeal of the law, before going on to appeal to human rights to advocate a new law which is identical in all but name).

The idea of a religious civil court that is separate from the normal civil court is crazy. If the idea was even breached in the United States it would be condemned by the left, center, and most of the right. Even if it somehow passed it would be declared unconstitutional because of the First Amendment.

So how does the amish solve their differences anyway?

The idea of a religious civil court that is separate from the normal civil court is crazy. If the idea was even breached in the United States it would be condemned by the left, center, and most of the right. Even if it somehow passed it would be declared unconstitutional because of the First Amendment.

Under UK law, two parties in dispute can appeal to any third party for arbitration. As long as both parties agree in advance to accept the decision, and as long as the decision doesn't contradict any UK laws, then the third party's decision is legally binding. An appeal can be made to a 'real' court in the same way that an appeal can be made in the normal court system.

For example, if two divorcing parents appealed to a Sharia court to decide who got custody of the children the court could award sole-custody to the father but it couldn't deny visiting rights to the mother and she could appeal to a civil court. Orthodox Jews have a similar arrangement called the Beth Din ('house of law'?).

So it's legal, but the state should never endorse the casual misogyny embodied by Sharia law by officially recognising it (or any other religious court for that matter)

So how does the amish solve their differences anyway?
They have a pray-off, and the winner gets the loser's hat.

If it's compatible with British law, fine.

If you're on about changing British law to allow forced marriages, kindly piss off over to Iran and enjoy yourself. Sharia law, Christian law, I really couldn't give a stuff.

That is all.

If they feel that marriage disputes are best handled by clerics, SO LONG as the clerics are dispensing British law... ok.

If the clerics are going to dispense something antithetical to British law, then my attitude is "either work within the system to change the laws, or go live somewhere where you agree with the laws".

So how does the amish solve their differences anyway?

He who can eat 2 trouts and a bowl of pudding first (without throwing up) wins.

At least that is what I heard...

For example, if two divorcing parents appealed to a Sharia court to decide who got custody of the children the court could award sole-custody to the father but it couldn’t deny visiting rights to the mother and she could appeal to a civil court. Orthodox Jews have a similar arrangement called the Beth Din (‘house of law’?).
The point being it has no bearing on civil law.

The beth din system does not have any jurisdiction on legal matters. If a Jewish couple wish to get divorced, they do so, like everybody else, through the civil legal system. However, under Jewish religious law, the couple are still technically married, and the beth din court can annul the marriage. It’s a purely religious observance; i.e. if the couple only went through the beth din system, they’d still be legally married.

Similarly, the sharia court’s decision would have no legal clout. It would merely arbitrate between two arguing parties; exactly the same as if one of my friends and I were arguing over some money and a third friend helped out by attempting to arbitrate between us. If the friend who was trying to help sort out the argument made a decision, I may well accept it as being fair, but it would be in no way a legal decision.

So, no, a sharia court couldn’t award custody legally.

So it’s legal
Legal in the sense of trying to solve disputes outside of court is legal, but not in the sense that these decisions have any legal bearing. I realise you may already know this, but it’s an important point that must be said.

The Archbishop’s comments seem to go further than this, arguing that religious courts should be able to pronounce legal settlements. I, like Kamsaki-Myu and others, can’t seem to read anything else out of Williams’ comments.

Hey Islam! You don't like enlightend law? Here's a ticket to go back to your countries where you can enjoy being hundreds of years behind the rest of the world...
And where are you going to send the Catholics, Anglicans, etc.?

Herefordshire?

I was really surprised when I heard this on the BBC that of all nations... the UK. And even more surprised when the BBC interviewed groups of "normal" (i.e. no burka and no 3 foot beard & turban) people (I guess they were all Islamic but a bunch looked like they were probably not) who fully supported the law, mainly on the grounds of making society better and that sort of stuff.

The point being it has no bearing on civil law.

The beth din system does not have any jurisdiction on legal matters. If a Jewish couple wish to get divorced, they do so, like everybody else, through the civil legal system. However, under Jewish religious law, the couple are still technically married, and the beth din court can annul the marriage. It’s a purely religious observance; i.e. if the couple only went through the beth din system, they’d still be legally married.

Similarly, the sharia court’s decision would have no legal clout. It would merely arbitrate between two arguing parties; exactly the same as if one of my friends and I were arguing over some money and a third friend helped out by attempting to arbitrate between us. If the friend who was trying to help sort out the argument made a decision, I may well accept it as being fair, but it would be in no way a legal decision.

So, no, a sharia court couldn’t award custody legally.

Legal in the sense of trying to solve disputes outside of court is legal, but not in the sense that these decisions have any legal bearing. I realise you may already know this, but it’s an important point that must be said.

The Archbishop’s comments seem to go further than this, arguing that religious courts should be able to pronounce legal settlements. I, like Kamsaki-Myu and others, can’t seem to read anything else out of Williams’ comments.

Yes, a religious court can make a legally binding decision if both parties agree to submit to the final decision. To quote the BBC with regard to the Beth Din:

Both sides in a dispute must be Jewish, obviously, and must have agreed to have their case heard by the Beth Din. Once that has happened, its eventual decision is binding. English law states that any third party can be agreed by two sides to arbitrate in a dispute, and in this case the institutional third party is the Beth Din.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm

In the same way, if you filled in the relevant paperwork then your friend's decision regarding the money would actually be legally binding.

They can't handle any criminal cases, and you're right in saying that couples need to get a civil divorce as well (I think custody disputes and family law would be potential areas for jurisdiction but I can't find a source to confirm or deny that).

Yes, a religious court can make a legally binding decision if both parties agree to submit to the final decision.
No, both parties must agree that the final decision is correct, before it is ‘binding’.

It is in no way legally binding; the instant any participant disagrees with the court, the court’s decision is disregarded.

In the same way, if you filled in the relevant paperwork then your friend's decision regarding the money would actually be legally binding.
No such 'relevant paperwork' exists, AFAIK.

No, both parties must agree that the final decision is correct, before it is ‘binding’.

It is in no way legally binding; the instant any participant disagrees with the court, the court’s decision is disregarded.

That's not true if it'll count as arbitration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration).

Then they can't just disagree with the judgement.

UK should follow what their hero Winston Churchill prescribed that to other countries. :D

No, both parties must agree that the final decision is correct, before it is ‘binding’.

It is in no way legally binding; the instant any participant disagrees with the court, the court’s decision is disregarded.

Read the BBC quote again:

Both sides in a dispute must be Jewish, obviously, and must have agreed to have their case heard by the Beth Din. Once that has happened, its eventual decision is binding. English law states that any third party can be agreed by two sides to arbitrate in a dispute, and in this case the institutional third party is the Beth Din.

This is the whole point of arbitration: you both agree to be bound by the decision of a third party. You can appeal to a civil court if you feel that the ruling breaks the law, but otherwise you're bound by it.