Is this a good thing, in that it is just another form of arbitration and keeps cases out of the courts, or is it the first step on the road to ruin for a once-great empire and rule of law?
Personally, I think it is a grave mistake on all levels. It undermines the entire concept of equal protection under the Law. In fact, it undermines the concept of The Law entirely.
Discuss.
As I understand it, this is not enforced, as in “Ah, you’re a Muslim, you must be judged under these laws”. All parties in whatever case must agree to submit to the decision made - I think it’s something like how those crappy television judge shows work. Both the idiots who want their dirty laundry aired on TV agree beforehand that they’ll abide by whatever the decision is. IOW, equal protection still exists, and would need to be waived by both parties in order for it to go before one of these courts.
I don’t think it undermines the concept of The Law - civil cases already were what the prosecuting party elected to make of it. I’m really quite unfond of Sharia law myself, though i’ll have to admit that I am not exactly an expert in all its details. I worry that “encouragement” for victimised parties to use the system may be that in name only; i’m not sure how it could be checked or indeed what would happen if one party was found to have been bullied into accepting it. And i’m really not that happy about the general court system support, but I suppose it’s better than the alternative.
I don’t have anything myself to offer at this point, I’m afriad, but I can contribue this response from one of today’s papers. (It’s worth following the link on the OP’s page, the original Sunday Times article is much more substantial.)
The title of this thread is so misleading as to represent an almost deliberate falsehood. From the full article:
Notice that there is absolutely no “Islamic” qualifier in this sentence (here’s the legislation in question, if anyone fancies it). If you’d read the whole article, you’d have seen that Jewish arbitration services have been settling civil disputes in the UK for 100 years, without any apparent dissolution of British society. What is in fact being reported is the emergence of sharia-based community arbitration services, in line with existing legislation and under the scope of universal UK law. If you can explain how permitting two parties to be bound by commonly agreed arbitrators represents a failure of equal protection, I’d be eager to hear it.
In short, Britain has not “adopted sharia law” or any such ridiculously simplistic assertion. Retract, please.
I find this interesting.
But Fox and others are only up in arms because Muslims are now using the same provisions? Odd.
In Fox’s defence, they do have that link to the Times article. They do seem to have left rather a bit out, though.
First, I don’t even get the “end of rule of law” nutter stuff you wrote above, allowing reference to customary religious custom in personal law isn’t anything stunningly innovative in common law.
Second, contra the lunatic Fox News (I mean really now art, as the Telegraph notes it’s simply arbitration according to the standards of the 96 Act on that. To my knowledge other religious groups have opted for religiously informed arbitration btw each other, why the bloody fuck are you so scared of the Muslims doing so?
Finally, what the hell does “equal protection” got to do with this?
Strikes me the whole to do comes from completely uninformed reaction by people who know fuck all about either the system, or Sharia law for that matter, beyond some vague half informed stereotypes. I mean come on now, if Mr & Mrs Muhanned of Bristol want to divvy up property on traditional law or standard Islamic law basis, why not? Guarantees a share, whereas the common will allows the nastier buggers to write everyone right out.
Yup, we went through a similar hysteria in Ontario over Sharia arbitration.
To be fair, the net result was to rule out arbitration altogether in certain family law cases, which was probably justified.
But the whole “OMG! Sharia!” crowd simply does not know, or care, that you can legally have arbitration based on whatever you want already - you could have it based on Klingon law if you really wanted it. 
The reference to the Jewish arbitration system, is the point I’d have made, had I arrived earlier. I frequent another site that is that full of anti-Muslim bollocks, that being in here is like breathing morning Alpen air.
I find any religious arbitration, backed up by force of law to be anathema. Be it Jewish, Muslim or Klingon. There is no way on Earth that the parties involved are on anything remotely considered equal footing in too many cases. Any religion that favors men over women in any way has no business making a legally-binding decision in anything.
The Law should be neutral, and not subject of any religious interpretations, whether the parties involved consent or not. And you can bet that the women were bullied into “consenting,” in a number of cases.
But hey, I’m a nutball who thinks Islam will bring down Western Civilization, so what do I know? Some ignorance is too dense to be fought. 
No? A century ago the Sun did not set on the British Empire. Today, it can barely hold onto Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Coincidence?
Okay, I think so, but I’m sure we can scare up some old gaffers who buy it.
The problem is that there is nothing so far restricting religious people from entering into contracts with each other. Presumably, “There is no way on Earth that the parties involved are on anything remotely considered equal footing in too many cases”.
Well, that’s another bloody matter entirely. Sorry, irrational anti-religious sentiment has not been with force of law in the UK… well ever really come to think of it.
In any case, insofar as common law custom has no small influence from Christian mores, models etc. (e.g. in terms of the wife getting wrong footed on assets, there you’d rather have the textbook Islamic law of seperate assets by law), you’re rather late to the game.
You’re very welcome I suppose to set up your ideal planet in another space time continuum, but otherwise afraid this rather simply sounds like trying to walk back a rant to a generic “Oh I hate all religion” stance from its real origins.
Anyone can bet on a number of highly unusual and often moderately unfactual propositions in the UK, under the right circumstances. In fact it seems to be a very popular past time.
It does not make a rational argument nor even a factual one, though, and I should imagine you end up losing about the same rate.
In any case, if you managed to read the actual background you’d know that a proper attorney at law is present as well as the religious advisors whatnot etc. and that nothing contrary to common law can be enforced. Where’s the fucking problem?
This may be a correct statement, although depressing of course.
Given the fierce opposition to any public display of religion (particularly Christian) in the United States I don’t understand the support for a separate but equal situation described in this thread. We’re not talking about a block of granite with the 10 commandments on it.
21st century Islam has a lot of similarities to 15th century Christianity. There is a Spanish Inquisition mentality to Sharia law and anyone wishing to subscribe to it would likely try to coerce a family member into it. This puts women in a dangerous situation.
I find arbitration that differs by religion or other criteria to be a disconnect from the concepts of equality.
The question is who enforces the decisions made in arbitration?
If it is simply mutual agreement, I have no problem with it; people have been settling disputes between themselves without the help of government for all of human history.
But do you really want your government enforcing Klingon law?
I’m with silenus here. Whether anybody is harmed or not is immaterial. The British government is supporting, justifying and enforcing religious law. Apparently they’ve been doing it for a hundred years, too.
But they also have their own state religion and I’ll never understand that. Despite our deep ties and shared cultural history with Great Britain, they still baffle me with their political ideas sometimes.
Who enforces contracts?
Or are you of the opinion that the majesty of the law has no business enforcing such bargans when they are formally struck between religious people? Or Star Trek geeks?
Generally I suspect it’s oppposition to public governmental endorsement of religion. You’re free to have a block of granite with the 10 commandments on it on your property. You’re free to wear a shirt with them on. And I rather suspect that the opposition is particularly towards Christianity because it’s predominantly Christian displays that are going to be made.
Why this isn’t a problem, at least in my eyes, is that it doesn’t endorse religion. As with all civil cases, it too is a personal decision made by the parties involved.
I concur; this is the part that worries me too.
It’s elected inequality. People choose not to be forgo equal treatment all the time; people who can pay will go to a private hospital rather than the NHS, for example. The important thing is that equality is there if you want it.
dropzone, you actually had me going there for a second. 
So in essence, you are opposed to the right of two parties to freely enter into an agreement together? You can see no situation in which two people might freely, and of their own will, agree to be bound by an arbitrator with whom they share common religious values? Or is it that you see the hazard involved in gaining consent to be so overriding that you will deny all religious people the right to enter into contracts according to their beliefs?
The question of the meaning of consent in a patriarchal community is a reasonable one, but rather ignores the fact that you get controlling men in just about any community you care to mention. Indeed, if we’re going to focus on domestic abuse cases, you’d say it’s trivially true that the abused partner’s consent is in question, no matter what the religion(s) of the parties involved. It would also be interesting to see how you propose excluding religious mediators of all stripes while preserving the principles of freedom of religion, and without imposing an impossibly onerous burden on what is genuinely useful legislation (used quite frequently in low level commercial arbitration, for example). How are you going to identify unacceptably religious arbitrators? Are you going to restrict arbitration duties to the avowedly atheist? Or are you going to toss the baby out with the bathwater, as it were, and commit the taxpayer to resolving every civil dispute in the country?
Pardon? Are you sure you’re not thinking of France, or Turkey? The USA, opposed to public displays of Christianity? You’re having a laugh.
It has been amply explained that what is being discussed is the ability of two people to freely nominate arbitrators of their own choice in minor civil matters, with full recourse to the courts should they so choose. This is no more “separate but equal” than my freedom to shop at Morrison’s rather than Sainsbury’s.
The problem as I see it is that Muslim communities are much likelier to force people to submit to Sharia arbitration, particularly women.
So. I guess most of you are fine with a woman being beaten and her having that resolved through Sharia law, which doesn’t treat women as equals. It is contrary to British law and should not be allowed. The inheritance example was but another look into this problem.
If a woman and a man are involved in a dispute, the man wants a Sharia court, as it benefits him right off the bat. And do you no think the woman will be…ahem…“encouraged” to agree to that venue?
This is extremely bad. The law should be the law for everyone. Either people are equal under it or they are not.