Randomness

**cliveb** · 30th September 2008, 22:09

But would other countries change their legal system like Britain? I doubt it.This is after all a predominately Christian country.

**leorcc** · 30th September 2008, 23:44

Let me make my position perfectly clear on this: In a democratic society it is detrimental to grant laws to a specific sub-society, No matter how huge the minority may be. That is, if it touches on the fundamental laws the majority of people in the society live by. It only fuels alienation, discrimination and feelings of inequality and leads to a shattered society.

I find this concept of a Sharia court in a country that is not muslim by the majority of its citizens an insult to the country. It insinuates that the existing laws are not sufficient while it has served your country for centuries and as opposed to Sharia Law amended its laws to accomodate the changing morals and values of the zeitgeist.

Now I know some might find this point of view Islamophobic but it truly isnt. I am in the opinion that if you want to live in a specific country you should adhere to that countries rules, and not impose your own value system on it. It doesnt matter to me what religious group tries to do it. You all live in the same country, you will all abide by the same laws.

**widow_twanky** · 1st October 2008, 00:00

I actually dont find it Islamaphobic Leo.

I think we are not a million miles apart. My argument is exactly the reverse of yours. If arbitration is available to all members of society then it should be available to all. And if as part of that arbitration the choice of applicable law is allowed then any law should be allowed.

Now, the jewish faith has been allowed to refer their issues to arbitration for many years. As have the construction industry. As have the RMT on a regular basis prior to calling a strike. We even have a consiliation service called ACAS which deals with arbitration in trade union and emplyoment cases etc.

The term court is misleading in the article. The option is to refer it to an arbitrator not a court. The referral can only be carried out with the consent of both parties.

At the end of the day Leo under UK law if I decided to take offence at your comments and sue you we could agree to refer my civil action to an arbitrator and have them decide the case under English Law, Dutch Law, Murphys Law or sods law. It is not a new concept. The concept of arbitration has been established in British law long before you or I were born. It is just good alarmist journalism!

We are not changing the law. It is just being used to meet the requirements of a changing society.

Andy

**maddox** · 1st October 2008, 07:11

Andy, what if a muslim acts under the Sharia and calls you to Sharia court?

**widow_twanky** · 1st October 2008, 07:54

He cant do that because you can only act under British law. The Sharia Court would actually be a tribunal. The only way it would have any jurisdiction would be if I accepted to go to an arbitrator (Sharia court) and if I decided to accept that a case should be ruled under Sharia law.

Quite simply that wouldnt happen. Not because I particularly object to it but because I dont understand Sharia law and I have the absolute right to have any case heard under english law.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6190080.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6190080.stm

Andy

**maddox** · 1st October 2008, 08:52

And there we have the main problem.

Why must Muslims have their own courts with rules you dont understand?
And to boot, a court you just can avoid by claiming not to be of their faith.

I wont predend to understand the Sharia, but what I have read from it, it aint pretty.

Lets imagine, you have a bit of trouble with the muslim neighbors. One of the joining walls has a problem. Its wet and wallpaper will mould and bladder off in weeks. Your neighbor ask you to give this case to a Sharia court, before it gets nasty.
You agree. Just to prove your good will.

What will be the result?

**leorcc** · 1st October 2008, 08:52

After reading up on this issue there are some concerns that linger.

Though it is true that arbitration decisions cannot be contrary to English law, Arbitration decisions in other areas which purport to apply English Law but where the legal principles of English Law are misunderstood/misapplied cannot be overturned - despite the fact that they are contrary to English law, and if it were a decision in a lower court could be overturned by a higher court - an arbitration decision must be a gross violation of English law before it will be struck down - this means that I imagine a Sharia Arbitration Panel would have considerable scope to make decisions which are contrary to English law, but which are not gross violations of English law.

Furthermore, I am concerned about family/community pressure put on women to use a Sharia court, which treats them quite differently to UK law. Similar courts in India already admitted to awarding women much less than men in financial disputes and their actions have resulted in women dropping their police complaints about being violently abused by their husbands. Women traditionally have very little power or influence in Muslim communities and by sanctioning these courts, were approving of that. All women in the UK should have access to the protection of UK law but its clear that many Muslim women dont and this inequality is likely to increase as more Muslim men use these courts.

**craig_colliass** · 1st October 2008, 10:10

It is true that Europeans are a dying race! In Oxford the birth rate is calculated at only 1.24 children per couple, though I am trying to up the average!
The government figures are, about 1.7 children bourn to indigenous peoples in the UK and 2.55 children bourn to the very welcome visitors with British citizenship.
Eventually we will be the minority group, then the democratic systems we have can be used to change the law to that of any previous minority group.
I believe A Church leader like David Pawson has predicted this event to happen in the future about 60 years from now.

**babeth** · 1st October 2008, 13:40

The arbitration courts according to religious laws are in my opinion against the national laws. Some religious laws (and I do include the Jewish ones, not just the Islamic) can be contrary to our national laws and even the Human Rights. Our national laws have been influenced by Christian religious laws, I will not deny that truth, but tempered by what we call the Age of Enlightenment and are in my opinion fair and as unbiased as possible. And even today our lawmakers are working to improve them even more. I am of the firm belief that religion should not influence law.
At the end, I believe that all inhabitants of a country should be subject to the national laws of that country, and if they have a problem regarding their religious laws/beliefs, they should go to a country where that problem does not exist. When one migrates, one must adapt to the new country, not demand to have the culture of the old country instated. Enrichment of a culture by intercultural exchange should be voluntary and gradual, not imposed by the newcomers. The latter situation would only create discontent and even hatred. In both sides.