Well, gosh, countries have been doing it for longer than that. Marriage is a legally recognized institution.
All civilized countries have some methodology for enforcing civil contracts. How would you propose you prove that a civil contract is NOT based on Islamic principles?
I’d say the problem with that is that while it’s a good point, if it is possible for some to force people to submit to Sharia arbitration, it’s also possible for them to force people to not bring a civil case whatsoever. Before this ruling (and still now, alas) it would be entirely possible to force people to appear before an entirely secret, unlawful body, the results of which likewise enforced by private citizens. At least this way there’s more of a chance people who’d do that would be willing to settle it in a more public fashion.
All of this is something that can happen anyway, though. A woman can be “encouraged” into not seeking arbitration whatsoever; a woman can be “encouraged” into dealing with a private, much more unpleasant court. What precisely do you see as this new change making things more unpleasant?
The law still is the same for everyone.
For criminal issues there should be no choices to make. For civil issues, people are free to use whatever arbitration system they agree to.
I think you misunderstand. The courts of arbitration in the UK are not above the criminal law.
In other words, a woman who is beaten is a victim of a crime of Assault, or Actual or Grevious Bodily Harm. Such a “dispute” would not be tried in a proposed religious arbitration, but with a prosecution in a British criminal court.
I am not entirely comfortable with the whole thing either, though Dead Badger raises a very strong argument about personal freedom, but faintly hysterical misinterpretations don’t help the arguments against it.
Did you happen to notice that this story doesn’t come from the United States?
Did you happen to notice that this story in fact comes from the United Kingdom?
Did you know that the United Kingdom, far from banning public displays of religion, has actually gone so far as to make Anglican Christianity the official state religion?
And that far from banning the ten commandments, the government does such things as fund churches and appoint religious leaders?
Now consider that in the United Kingdom most people don’t give two shits about religion.
Now consider the possible relation between the above facts and the last fact.
No more than I am in favour of illiteracy, ignorance, or faux outrance, or knee jerking without bothering to gain any acquaintance with the facts.
(Where the beating comes in, with respect to Arbitration, boggles, active and fevered imagination I suppose)
Actually, no it is not contra British law. In fact it fits quite well in the Arbitration law scheme. If you bother to read up about it that is. And as noted predecessor regimes have been used by the Orthodox Jews, whose Canon Law (or whatever its called) contains racy medieval stuff as well.
Although I seem to recall raging bigots and anti-semites quite afraid of the swarthy Semites had issues with this in the past. Luckily they were few.
Ahem, I think that the Muslim girls around the UK hardly need ill informed Americans to tell them their rights, or imagine they’re little pansies who you can push around (never mind again the bloody fucking Arb law doesn’t allow for enforceable decisions prejudicial to British law). You might actually try reading the fucking proper description of the law eh?
Bollocks: the Law is the law, same for everyone, whatever hysterical overreaction says. The facts are quite clearly laid out in the Telegraph art.
I want to agree with this but can’t for two reasons. First, they’re allowing Sharia to rule in domestic abuse cases. Second, as is shown in the inheritance example in the article, it treats women as less than full persons. If this was always dealing with either two males or two women and their was no violence, I maybe could see. But once you have two people the law doesn’t view equally or violence is allowed, no way. Better just make it easy now and do away with it. One country, one law. One law under which all people are equal.
I’m amazed that people on the Dope of all places would find this acceptable.
Because england is putting a stamp of approval on it, giving it credibility it doesn’t deserve.
Like going on “The Peoples Court.”
Domestic abuse. And on that note, I’m done with you.
May Sharia Law fill all your days.
I’m not an expert in British law, but I also have reservations about arbitration applying in situations involving violence.
As mentioned by Dropzone we have the Peoples Court, Judge Judy and a metric crapload of other ‘court’ shows. Those shows are nothing more than arbitration of civil matters. (which is what allows Judge Milian to practice what she calls ‘rough justice’)
The Times article indicates that there were parallel police investigations, that were dropped when the women in question withdrew their complaints.
Whether or not the women were coerced into withdrawing their complaints in order to allow the sharia service to arbitrate is part of my personal misgiving about the whole thing, but withdrawal of complaints about domesitc assault is something that happens all the time in native British society too, even without arbitration services being involved.
In other words, for the hard of reading (and I don’t mean you here, just someone else in the thread with the same digits in their username), the sharia arbitration service is still not above the criminal law.
Criminal matters remain criminal matters. Are you going to bother making yourself even passingly acquainted with the facts, or is this debate going to be conducted entirely by ataxia of the knee?
Do you know what they mean by the arbitration court handling ‘other smaller criminal matters’? I’m curious as to what that would refer to.
No idea. As far as I can tell, it hasn’t happened yet, but I presume it’s something that would involve the injured party withdrawing their complaint to the police as well, and both them and the accused agreeing to submit to the tribunal on a civil basis. The Telegraph article says:
Incidentally, I understand it’s the same arbitration provision that sporting bodies use to fine players for “bringing the game into disrepute”, etc.
I should hope so, before you say more things unfounded in fact or without any foundation to the actual reality.
Domestic abuse is not a matter of civil arbitration as such, mate. And since, again, there are actual legal councilors on hand and no arbitration can contradict British law, I again say, what the bloody fuck are you on about, other than merely flailing about in manners reminiscent of the BN party.
Ah, sure, if I get in a dispute with nice Mr Shirin down the street, I suppose he might waggle his mighty handle bar moustache threateningly and I’ll just fall over and agree to … eh, arbitration.
Yes, that would be it.
Was the noncapitalisation purposeful, or just an ironic mistake? 
Anyway, we do not have an English government (yet, anyway), but a British one, so it’s more than just England putting a stamp of approval on it. But I do think that this is a good point; it could certainly be argued that doing so gives Sharia creditibility that it doesn’t deserve. I would argue, however, that the good outweighs the bad; those who would compel women to drop a civil suit are at worst going to continue to do so, but at best perhaps accept this system. It makes for a more open, seethrough system than otherwise, which is generally good; and by having things more out in the open, the true nature and practices of it can be more easily revealed - the level of creditibility it deserves can be more accurately judged.
And to your point on domestic abuse, violent assault, rape and the like are criminal charges, not civil ones.
I am afraid there is some ignorance to be fought here. A criminal matter cannot in any way shape or form be subject to arbitration of any kind, religious or otherwise. It is the government against the accused and the government cannot subject itself to any arbitration in such matters and it would be totally illegal if they tried such a thing. So let us put that stupid notion to rest.
A civil matter can be subject to arbitration if both parties agree to it and they can agree to whatever rules or principles they want whether religious or otherwise.
I remember some case long ago where some athlete sued a sports federation because he had lost some arbitration case with them. It seems when you joined you had to sign an agreement that you agreed to binding arbitration. But he appealed to the courts on the grounds that it was not really voluntary because you were required to accept that condition in order to be accepted as a member. The court accepted the argument and ruled the guy could have his day in court.
Actually, he’s right. There is a huge uproar anytime there’s any sign of a government overtly supporting/favoring a religion or displaying religious symbols. It’s the less visible and more meaningful parts of government where religion has a disturbing amount of influence here.
Also, have you ever been to Turkey? I was just there last year and I find you bringing them up here to be pretty laughable. They’re better than a lot of muslim countries, but they’re a long way from western style separation of church and state.