Public display and Government display are two different things.
Aren’t there unenforceable contracts? I know nothing about contract law, but I’m really not happy with people signing up, consensually or not, to be subjects of a separate, unjust and superstitiously-motivated court system.
Religious and civil marriages are entirely separate in all but name. If people were legally required to follow the bible as it pertains to marriages, there would be no divorce and women would still be second-class citizens. And even though people can voluntarily opt in to this kind of arrangement, I sure wouldn’t want the government to enforce it.
Religion can’t be kept entirely out of the law, but it should certainly be minimized, not embraced wholeheartedly and backed by the full force of the national government.
I generally don’t see a problem with it for reasons others have pointed out–the courts are just enforcing a contract.
However, one possible problem is that English law may have trouble when dealing with arguments to collaterally attack a Sharia judgment. For example, when one party sues another on a contract, the defendant can argue that no contract existed because there was fraud in the inducement, etc.
I’m not sure how this would work exactly when an English court is asked to enforce a Sharia judgment and the defendant argues that XYZ requirement of the Koran or Hadith was not complied with in the original case. I imagine the English court can kick the case back to the Sharia court to get those issues sorted out and then enforce the judgement as re-constituted (if it is re-constituted at all). However, it seems to me that situations could arise (currently I’m at a loss for an example) where a legitimately aggrieved party could be without a remedy simply because English courts don’t know anything about Sharia law. But maybe I’m wrong or having English courts enforce Sharia judgments outweighs this concern.
Yah, that never occurred to me in a thread titled Britain adopts sharia law. Since the majority of posters in the Straight Dope are from the US I directing my post at them.
If you read and understood my thread you would have seen the point of my dissent was the sexist nature of Sharia Law and the real possibility of the coercion of women. But thanks for sharing. Next time I’ll type it in British.
Interestingly, according to Wikipedia, Sharia law was a significant influence in the formation of English common law.
What a bizarre wikipedia article. Finishes up by just listing a vague ensemble of things that it claims have influenced common law, some of which are debatable to say the least:
Justice rather than morality? You’re claiming that english common law didn’t have that before the Norman invasion?
The law above the state? There was no state when common law was founded. So the “law” was always above the “state”. That’s how it started.
All of the above are doubtful/seriously debatable and yet the wiki article just lists them without any back-up. Makes me suspicious.
English common law goes back centuries before the Norman invasion. There’s the Anglo-Saxon Dooms and the laws of AEthelbert, King of Kent, from 560-616 AD.
And they are sophisticated enough to suggest that their origins lie some centuries before that. They are just the earliest hard copies we have. Many of the principles in the quote above were already in common law long before the Normans arrived. And before the christians as well for that matter, that’s another thing that really pisses me off.
It must be true, it’s on the Wiki site.
Since this debate is about the freedom of individuals to choose the manner in which they resolve disputes, I assumed he was talking about personal religious displays, not public ones. I do now see the point he was trying to make, but it’s pretty much irrelevant as this conversation is not about government-run adjudication services.
Yes, I have been to Turkey, thank you. Again, I was speaking with reference to their (and France’s) headscarf ban, which you may have heard about (also, try being conspicuously Christian next time you’re over there, see how much fun you have). I was not referring to separation of church and state, because again, this thread is about private adjudication services.
Edit: Thank you to whoever changed the thread title…
British courts are already dealing with such situations under commercial litigations with “sharia compliant” financial contracts. So far it’s worked fine, common law comes first.
Never trust a bloody wiki article, that’s idiotic bollocks.
Thin end of the bloody wedge. In a culture with such an imbalance in power and status between the sexes the ‘all parties agree’ get-out is meaningless.
So, is there absolutely no foundation whatsoever to the claims in that article?
Eh, didn’t say it was the gospel truth, but it’s an interesting take on things if there is any truth to it.
It’s fucking fantasy. “The precursor to the English jury trial was the Lafif trial in classical Maliki jurisprudence, which was developed between the 8th and 11th centuries in North Africa and Islamic Sicily, and shares a number of similarities with the later jury trials in English common law.”
Come on now, are you fucking serious? This is “maybe kinda sorta it sorta resembles post hoc ergo prompter hoc” tossing off.
I’ve gotten nothing against influences, but that article is wonderful example of why Wikipedia is shite.
Absolutely right man, shouldn’t let any damned Chavras or Geordies in Arbitration, given their culture and general demeanour. Can’t trust the lot of the drunken sots.
It would also be an interesting take on things if there were any truth to the assertion that GW Bush is the child of a monkey and a pig with lipstick, wouldn’t it?
I disagree that “Wikipedia is shite” but I am totally with you on the rest.
There was a Social Services report I read recently on battered women in asian households and it was horrific. The horror was compounded by the fact Muslim police colluded with the family.
There is no point kidding ourselves as to the patriarchal, still firmly rooted in rural bangladesh, nature of masses of the Muslim immigrant population and what that means for the position of women.
There certainly are unenforcable contracts, and any contract or arbitration which created a result contrary to (English) public policy or exceeded legal or juristictional limits - set by the laws of England - would not be enforceable.
Which is why this whole controversy is a mountain made of a molehill. The whole proceeding is simply a form of alternative dispute resolution, bound within the limits of (local) law.
Now, there is a real debate as to whether certain family law matters should be subject to alternative dispute resolution at all - that is, to put it more simply, whether those engaged in divorce or other family law matters should be able to settle their affairs by contract, rather than going before a judge. There may be a valid argument that a certain degree of state paternalism is necessary in such cases due to the inherent risks of unbalanced bargaining positions.
But that has nothing to do with the Sharia business - or rather, the Sharia business is just one specific example of a much more general problem.
couples who are breaking up settle their affairs by contract all the time - they’re called separation agreements, and are enforced by the courts, just like other contracts. why is that a bad thing? should a couple that can agree on the terms of their separation nonetheless be forced to go to court, with all the attendant expenses? courts are to resolve disputes between the parties, not to be a state arbiter of the private lives of individuals.
And an ‘arbitration service’ rooted in a system that gives unequal weight to genders, gives them differing rights and responsibilities? Like with inheritance? Like with divorce?
And from the original Times article.