51. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247914 by Rachel Holmes on September 15, 2008 at 9:16 am

Do you suggest that Sharia courts should be singled out for exclusion from arbitration, Al?

If so, could that not cause at least as many problems as it solves, by alienating Muslims who feel benignly towards the UK?

If not, then what?

I'm genuinely interested in this conversation; I just don't see any quick and easy solutions.

52. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247902 by Rachel Holmes on September 15, 2008 at 8:56 am

Nairb,

Arbitration cannot override in areas where English law prescribes a solution. So, for instance, an arbiration tribunal cannot legally divorce a couple. Only the court can do that.

Whilst there are rules on inheritance, they do not deal with the distribution of assets, except in the case of intestacy. I am not sure if the intestacy rules can be overruled by agreement between the deceased's relatives.

Any clearer?

EDIT: I'm now waiting for some expert on arbitration law to turn up and tell me that there has been some major legal upheaval. If it happens, I will eat my word. And possibly a slice of cake.

53. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247898 by Rachel Holmes on September 15, 2008 at 8:51 am

Al,

There has been no compromise - that is my point. The Muslim Councils have realised that they can use the Arbitration Act 1996 and are now doing so.

It would require new legislation to remove that right: a right which has existed since the 1996 Act came into force.

Nothing has been conceded to them that has not been conceded to any group that can create rules that meet the requirements of English arbitration law.

If there had been any such concession, your slippery slope phraseology would have merit. But there hasn't.

54. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247888 by Rachel Holmes on September 15, 2008 at 8:38 am

No, al, There's a difference. Arbitration judgments are enforceable by the High Court.

Wearing the hijab isn't. Not that I like the idea of women having so little say in what they wear. I deplore it. Moreover, if a woman wears the hijab under threat of physical violence, then the law does have a right to step in.

To go back to your bar analogy: it's one thing if two people have a dispute in the corner and a third person comes up with a solution I find unfair. It's another thing if that third person asks me to enforce that decision for them. In the latter case, I'll want to know that the parties were perfectly happy to use the resolution procedure.

EDITED.

55. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247887 by Rachel Holmes on September 15, 2008 at 8:34 am

Ah, you're welcome, PBUM.

When it comes to legal matters, I like to look behind the headlines to see what's really happened.

In this case, the answer is "bugger all".

56. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247876 by Rachel Holmes on September 15, 2008 at 8:22 am

But Britain hasn't allowed anything that was not already allowed.

Of course I fear that women will be forced into accepting unfair judgments (and the article shows this fear to be well-founded). At the same time, it pisses me off that the article gives the impression that the law has changed to allow something that has not been allowed before.

It hasn't.

Britain has NOT suddenly endorsed Sharia courts.

This is not a sign of Britain's Government doling out special legal privileges to Muslims. The Government has no constitutional power to make such a gift, in any event.

So those of you who would like to make out that this is some sort of creeping Shariaisation of the UK are - not to put too fine a point on it - wrong.

As I said before, the better question is how to make sure that parties using arbitation (whether under Sharia principles, halacha or whatever) are doing so voluntarily.

57. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247732 by Rachel Holmes on September 15, 2008 at 1:33 am

My research so far:

The legal change in 2007 that allowed Sharia law to be used in arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1996 is....

...absolutely fucking nowhere.

No change, no "quiet sanctioning" of these courts. Happy to be corrected, but it appears that the Muslims simply figured out that their proceedings could fall within the framework of the Arbitration Act 1996 and offered this as a service.

Use of the Arbiration Act remains voluntary. Judgments given by an arbitrator are, however, enforceable by the High Court. But the High Court cannot enforce anything that is contrary to English law.

It seems to me that the question is not so much whether Muslims should be able to make use of the Arbitration Act 1996, but how you ensure that parties using that procedure are doing so of their own free will and not under duress.

I would add this, though. It has been (rightly) argued that if a Muslim couple use arbitration to determine their divorce settlement, the woman will be coerced into accepting something patently unfair.

Since divorce settlements can be negotiated, the same problem is likely to apply to settlement proceedings carried out at court.

58. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247325 by Rachel Holmes on September 14, 2008 at 10:11 am

Oh great. Fantastic.

Looks like I was wrong in my interpretation of Lord Phillips' speech earlier this year.

When I've got time, I'll look into the background to this.

Worrying indeed.

59. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240138 by Rachel Holmes on August 31, 2008 at 12:47 am

Fanusi, your own morals are relative. They are relative to the question of what supports life versus what destroys it (per post 451).

Great.

Mine too. And, as I've said, I'm willing to stand up for them.

However, if you want me to accept that your (and my) morals are absolute, then you'll need to prove that your criteria for judging good and evil are the right criteria.

If you can do that without going circular, I'll be convinced. And impressed.

60. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239858 by Rachel Holmes on August 30, 2008 at 1:18 pm

When you say that there are no moral absolutes you aren't arguing for a different moral system, you are arguing that no moral system is valid.

What do you mean by valid? I hold my values passionately; I would fight and have fought for them (metaphorically: when you're 5' tall and weigh 47kilos, you tend to avoid punch-ups). Nevertheless, I recognise that they are mine. They are not woven into the very fabric of the universe as objective moral laws.

But I don't consider them any the less valid for that.

61. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239401 by Rachel Holmes on August 29, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Gets my vote, decius.

62. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239391 by Rachel Holmes on August 29, 2008 at 2:10 pm

I think I understand that joke, Sargeist.

I feel even more disturbed now.

63. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239387 by Rachel Holmes on August 29, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Diacanu,

Pussy on shelves? Woah! Now there's a mental image of Sainsbury's I never thought I'd have.

64. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239383 by Rachel Holmes on August 29, 2008 at 2:05 pm

The reason anything short of deportation won't work is as follows: fines? They're bankrolled by Saudi Arabia. Imprisonment? They'll preach to violent, rough men and recruit a small army of jihadis inside. No. Unless you are willing to a) deport them, b) confine them to a special prison for the rest of their natural life, or c) kill them, this problem isn't going away. Option a) seems the best of them.

Are you not overlooking the fact that deporting people allows them to recruit abroad ? We may have home-grown the 7/7 bombers, but I believe the 9/11 crowd mostly came from Arabic states. Deported imams could also gain a following in this country, via the Internet.

Personally, I think that deporting these people would allow them to reach a far larger audience than keeping them incarcerated.

65. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239368 by Rachel Holmes on August 29, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Come on Sargeist, you've got Angelina Jolie. Admittedly a bit of a crap bisexual these days.

I had Jodie Foster. (Not literally.) Everyone knew. Like her coming out surprised anyone.

I pity you Larry Grayson though, Steve.

66. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239359 by Rachel Holmes on August 29, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Preserving liberalism has always required some very illiberal measures. Do I like that? No. But what I like doesn't come into it.

Such as? Are we on Hiroshima/Nagasaki again? Because I suspect you'll find a lot of disagreement on whether that was "required".

67. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239352 by Rachel Holmes on August 29, 2008 at 1:43 pm

I was pretty sure (as sure as I can be in this maelstrom of recrimination) that Fanusi was advocating punishment of those actively speaking out in favour of violent jihad.

If that is the case, then I find his views a litle less frightening. Even then - as you say - we have laws to deal with things like incitement. Those laws should should be enforced.

Deportation is unnecessary, for UK-born citizens.

EDIT: Fanusi, I wouldn't call Abu Hamza semi-anything. If, as you are now saying, you are talking about punishing people who commit crimes (whether somthing like incitement, or rape of an underage girl), then yes, let's punish them, not deport them. I have had the impression that you wanted to round up and deport anyone who "supported Sharia", which seemed to be a definition that could include the semi-observant.

68. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239343 by Rachel Holmes on August 29, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Very much so, CFL. Do we really want a system that punishes people not for what they've done but for what the Government fears they might do, sometime, someplace, possibly in the near or distant future, we can't really be sure but let's not take any chances eh?

69. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239341 by Rachel Holmes on August 29, 2008 at 1:25 pm

My response to Rachel is the same answer I have given time and time again. Locke - at least, I'm fairly certain it was Locke - when arguing for tolerance, meant tolerance between the different protestant sects, but not for Catholics. this was because he understood that the Catholics were so powerful that if they set up shop, they'd crush all opposition. It goes without saying that he'd have been against the tolerance of Islam.

So, if I understand you rightly, you actually think that deporting native-born citizens for nothing more than what they believe (not for inciting or causing violence, simply for what they believe) is a proportionate and necessary response to the threat of Islam. Nothing less drastic will do.

Wow.

I'm sure I can't be the only one to feel slightly amused that you think Pastor Niemoller's poem supports your views.

"First they came for the semi-observant Muslims..."

70. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239301 by Rachel Holmes on August 29, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Rachel Holmes, okay, how about the following: In Germany membership in a fascist party is illegal - and Germany seems to maintain it's democracy just fine.

Sorry, I must have missed the bit where we skipped from talking about deporting citizens to outlawing membership of a far-right political party. Whilst I disagree with Germany's stance on that issue, it's hardly in the same league as your "modest proposal".

EDIT: Oh, and knock it off with the Messiah complex, would you?

71. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239264 by Rachel Holmes on August 29, 2008 at 10:29 am

Fanusi,

You're not stupid, so how come you can't see the difference between the police cracking down on people who have committed harmful criminal acts and a Government exiling people for their beliefs?

Doing this would be to stomp on freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, both of which are fundamental democratic principles.

Seriously, how can you not see this?

72. Priest Antonio Rungi wants beauty contest - for nuns

Comment #236706 by Rachel Holmes on August 25, 2008 at 6:18 am

No, no, Bonzai - he chose Sophia Loren for her inner beauty. I'm sure he thinks she's minging to look at. In fact, he probably looked at her knockers for hours before deciding he thought she had a lovely character.

73. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #219075 by Rachel Holmes on July 26, 2008 at 8:33 am

What is certain is that the Bang did not happen by chance and nor did its aftermath which is the crystal clear Design in Universe.

Crystal clear, eh?

Like it's crystal clear to me that, despite what you may think as a gardener, the thing you really need to do to get lovely fuchsias is to sing them Bach chorales on alternate Thursdays at 15.24.

No, I don't care what laws of nature and your work tell you - I AM RIGHT AND YOU NKOW IT IN YOUR HEART BUT YOU DENY THIS OBVIOUS TRUTH. I SUGGEST YOU START SINGING "JESU JOY OF MAN'S DESIRING" TO THE FUCHSIAS NEXT THURSDAY, OR SUFFER!

74. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #219060 by Rachel Holmes on July 26, 2008 at 8:16 am

Joe,

I don't know if you realise this, but you trying to tell people like Steve Zara and epeeist about the implications of modern cosmology is like me - whose exposure to horticulture is limited to having half-seen a couple of episodes of "Gardener's World" - lecturing you about your job.

Don't you think it would be a tad arrogant (not to mention daft) for me to think I knew more about your field than you do? Really?

75. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215062 by Rachel Holmes on July 21, 2008 at 8:28 am

If we started to widely prosecute drunken (regrettable) sex on both sides, we would have a crowded prison system (which we alread do).


Yes, Al, but it should be possible to draw a line between the regretted drunken bang and the so-out-of-it-they-were-incapable-either-of-consenting-or-withholding-consent-and-the-other-party-should-have-known-that bang.

My god, Im articulate.

76. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215058 by Rachel Holmes on July 21, 2008 at 8:25 am

I was wondering about that too mix, but I have my reservations. Being a lady of the gayer persuasion, I am not overly familiar with the (admittedly impressive) hydraulic functions of the male organ, but isn't it a fallacy to assume that if one part of a man's body produces a certain physiological "yes" response, then his mind must be equally willing?

77. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215049 by Rachel Holmes on July 21, 2008 at 8:17 am

Sure, then this applies to men as well. If I was drunk and had sex with a girl, then I can also claim rape based on diminished capacity... equal application of the law. I don't mean to be rude, but I don't find it all that cute that women get to play the "drunk" card and not men.

Damn straight. It should cut both ways.

78. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215043 by Rachel Holmes on July 21, 2008 at 8:12 am

I agree, Al. It is difficult. If hungarianelephant has been involved in rape cases, he will be better placed than I to know this, but I wonder how many potential rape prosecutions fall down because it was reasonable in the circumstances for the man to believe that the woman was consenting. And if so, how often alcohol was a factor.

79. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215034 by Rachel Holmes on July 21, 2008 at 8:02 am

Al,

Under UK law, drunkenness can affect consent, since it's relevant to the issue of capacity.

Your experience sounds rather grim. I had similar experiences myself in my hedonistic 20s, and there's definitely a difference between regretted drunken sex and rape. Though perhaps you don't regret your experience!

80. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215030 by Rachel Holmes on July 21, 2008 at 7:56 am

Thanks, PBUM, I didn't know that.

81. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215028 by Rachel Holmes on July 21, 2008 at 7:55 am

Mix,

The 80s were grim for rape victims. Anyone remember the lovely Judge Pickles, who frequently blamed women for being attacked?

There was a series on in the 80s starring Jennifer Saunders as, well, most of the characters. One of her characters had just been released from jail and explained her offence to another:

"I was wearing a skirt and a judge raped me; I got 5 years for jeopardising his career".

It was a bit like that back then.

82. Nine face stoning death in Iran

Comment #215024 by Rachel Holmes on July 21, 2008 at 7:49 am

Good question, Al, though having been raped myself I can tell you that whilst I didn't officailly report it (for a number of reasons, not least because I really didn't want the hassle of going through a drawn-out legal procedure), I certainly mentioned it.

It may be that rape crisis centres collect stats and compare them against official police figures. Who knows?

But rape is huely difficult to prove; it's one person's word against another. If it's been a violent rape, then yes it may be easier, but since rape is any sexual intercourse where the woman was not consenting, physical violence needn't be present.

83. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #213938 by Rachel Holmes on July 19, 2008 at 8:48 am

Tez,

Quite. It's easy to keep the family together when your wife is unable to earn and has good reason to fear she'll be killed if she sets a foot out of line.

Doesn't sound much like a game of "Happy Families", though.

84. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #213916 by Rachel Holmes on July 19, 2008 at 8:22 am

I'm confused. Thewhitepearl doesn't wear the veil, but she is respected and appreciated for her comments by all the men here. With one exception: Joe "testa di cazzo" Morreale, the Muslim.

So women need to cover up to be respected by Muslim men. That says a hell of a lot more about Muslim male lasciviousness than about female virtue.

85. Religious bigotry upheld in court

Comment #209393 by Rachel Holmes on July 12, 2008 at 5:35 am

Having read the Tribunal decision, it seems to turn very much on the poor way Islington handled this case (considering how it had handled similar cases). As such, it's easily distinguishable on most points.

I still think it was wrongly decided, especially on the indirect discrimination point. The Tribunal found that requiring all registrars to perform CP ceremonies was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. That is, of course, a matter of judgment, but I disagee. Where do you want to draw that line? The Tribunal is implying that it's proportionate to expect employers (and colleagues) to bend over backwards to cover areas of work that an employee refuses to do on religious grounds.

This flags up the underlying problem with religious discrimination law: it determines that a repugnant view should be respected just because it is religious in nature.

86. Religious bigotry upheld in court

Comment #208985 by Rachel Holmes on July 11, 2008 at 1:22 pm

I always think it's hard to balance these rights. After all, let's be reasonable here, guys: if you tell a Christian fundamentalist that she cannot - as a matter of law - discriminate against a homosexual, you are effectively denying her her religious right to be a cunt.

And, for religious fundamentalists, that's an important right.

I do hope that straight couples planning to marry at Islington Registry Office have some way of refusing to allow Ms Ladele to officiate at their ceremony.

Another thought: if a fundamentalist Christian is prevented by his religious beliefs from properly discharging the duties of a registrar, then local authorities should be entitled to refuse point blank to consider him for a registrar post, without falling foul of anti-discrimination law.

Wonder how The Christian Institute would like that bit of logical follow-through?

87. Churches' secret talks to stop gay surge

Comment #205409 by Rachel Holmes on July 7, 2008 at 8:44 am

Is this gay surge the boy equivalent of this?

http://www.biva.co.uk/images/ad_lesbosurge_lge.gif

88. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #205035 by Rachel Holmes on July 6, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Direct enough to be meaningful; nuanced enough to deal with reality.

It's not an easy line to tread.

89. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204975 by Rachel Holmes on July 6, 2008 at 10:40 am

Fanusi,

You're welcome for the link.

A speech full of obfuscation and ambivalence? From a lawyer? Never let it be said!

But do they specify anything contrary too English law? If not, then how are they not governed by it? No answer.

In fairness, if Lord Phillips had tried explaining cross-jurisdictional rules, he'd still be there now and most of the audience would have died of bordeom.

90. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204922 by Rachel Holmes on July 6, 2008 at 7:42 am

Ricky,

Fuck knows. The idea of a Sharia that is compatible with Western values reminds me of a scene from The Life of Brian:

STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.

REG: What?!

LORETTA: It's my right as a man.

JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?

LORETTA: I want to have babies.

REG: You want to have babies?!

LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.

REG: But... you can't have babies.

LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.

REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!

LORETTA: [crying]

JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.

FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.

So, ricky: Muslims can't have any of the things that Sharia mandates, but they can have the right to have all the things that Sharia mandates.

Clear now?

Bonzai

You could be right re: Lord Phillips' intentions. I very much hope not.

I agree that it was right for the media to report the story, but it could have been better presented. Instead of a "Sharia law could have role in UK" with the caveats as a footnote, it could have been "Muslims must take the UK's laws as they find them", with the bits about Sharia as a footnote. But would that sell?

Good for the moderate Muslim women of Canada, by the way.

91. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204916 by Rachel Holmes on July 6, 2008 at 7:16 am

Bonzai

I really don't think that he was suggesting formal recognition. By all means, read the speech and tell me if you think I'm wrong.

Why did he say it? Quite. Presumably, because he was trying to tell his Muslim audience that they were free to do what other people do. So kind of pointless and politically unwise.

Perhaps another question is "why did the media carefully select Lord Phillips's comments to create the impression - including to extremist Muslim readers - that they were being offered special rights?"

92. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204908 by Rachel Holmes on July 6, 2008 at 6:48 am

Fanusi

You're right. Enforcement is where we'll fall down. That's where the work needs doing, not in Westminster Hall.

In the interests of putting off the ironing, I've read the whole speech. It's available at http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/speeches/lcj_equality_before_the_law_030708.pdf if anyone else wants to take a butcher's.

My reading pretty much confirms my interpretation of Lord Phillips' words. Here is the paragraph on which the article is based, in its entirety. Tthe bits in bold are consistent with my "it's already like this and it's the same for everyone" view.

It was not very radical [of the Archbishop of Canterbury] to advocate embracing Sharia Law in the context of family disputes, for example, and our system already goes a long way towards accommodating the Archbishop's suggestion. It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law. Those who, in this country, are in dispute as to their respective rights are free to subject that dispute to the mediation of a chosen person, or to agree that the dispute shall be resolved by a chosen arbitrator or arbitrators. There is no reason why principles of Sharia Law, or any other religious code should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution. It must be recognised, however, that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of the mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales. So far as aspects of matrimonial law are concerned, there is a limited precedent for English law to recognise aspects of religious laws, although when it comes to divorce this can only be effected in accordance with the civil law of this country.

My only worry here is with the sentence that talks about how we're already largely accommodating the Archbishop's suggestion. Does this imply further efforts to accommodate? It does seem, though, that the media have sensationalised this story. Quelle surprise!

Below are some choice quotations that would have made quite a different story, if they'd been reported:

"Rights carry with them obligations, and those who come to live in this country and to benefit from the rights enjoyed by all who live here, also necessarily come under the same obligations that the law imposes on all who live here."

"Those who come to live in this country must take its laws as they find them. British diversity is valued and the principles of freedom and equality that the law protects should be welcomed by all. Laws in this country are based on the common values of tolerance, openness, equality and respect for the rule of law. Whilst breaches of the requirements of any religion in the U.K. may not be punished by the law, people are free to practise their religion. That is something to be valued."

Finally, this little gem:

"It is not enough that all in this country are entitled by law to equal treatment. It is up to you to make sure that you, and those for whom you are responsible, treat every man and woman on equal footing, entitled to the same personal dignity and respect. "

This still leaves the concerns expressed by e.g. Matthew Parris about whether participation is genuinely voluntary. It's also true that the Lord Chief Justice seems to think that Sharia is largely benevolent. Nevertheless, this does, I think, put his comments into perspective.

93. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204543 by Rachel Holmes on July 5, 2008 at 7:09 am

Styrer,

Many thanks for your gallant offer of protection! Let's hope I never need it.

I've enjoyed this too, though I now need a couple of paracetamol and a good lie-down.

Enjoy the rest of your Saturday.

Take care yourself,

Rachel

94. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204538 by Rachel Holmes on July 5, 2008 at 6:22 am

Styrer,

Ah! I wonder why I thought you were American? I was marvelling at your stamina.

When you read the Koran, did you treat it as a piece of fiction? Did you marvel at the quaintness of it all? Did you at even one point think 'Oh surely that's just bluster, it's not real?'

Or did you read it as a Muslim reads it? Did you set yourself in the House of War? Or without that venerable metaphorical institution?

Did you read the Hadith in conjunction?

I don't think it'll come as any surprise to you that I am liberal-leaning. :-)

Funnily (?) enough, I read the Qur'an after 9/11, with the aim of enabling myself to counter arguments that Islam was a violent and vicious religion.

It had the opposite effect. I was horrified by what I read. My summary of the Qur'an would be "treat Muslims well; fuck everyone else". It was easy to see how it could be used to justify 9/11.

I have read some Hadith, but not much.

As I said earlier, I suspect our differences on this thread have been more a matter of emphasis rather than substance. As a gay woman, god knows I'd hate to see our country give official recognition to Sharia.

All the best,

Rachel

95. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204525 by Rachel Holmes on July 5, 2008 at 5:28 am

Styrer, I edited my post. Not sure if that makes any difference. Happy to give you access to those other threads.

Why should there be alternatives? Because in a free society you can do what you like as long as it's not prohibited by law. That freedom does not constitute official State endorsement. You can use a bloody clapometer, if you like. That's in addition to, not instead of, formal legal forms of resolution.

I may not have the first idea about Islam (though having read the Qur'an, I'd dispute that), but - with respect - I'm not convinced you have the first clue about English law. Nor is there any reason why you should, if you're American.

96. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204515 by Rachel Holmes on July 5, 2008 at 5:07 am

Styrer,

Sharia cannot be permitted to gain even the slightest foothold on the formal legal system of the UK. Should you persist in your assertion that 'you can settle disputes however you like', then you immediately relinquish the most important protection afforded to Muslim, apostate and infidel alike in the British Isles.

You keep missing the bit where I say that people can resolve disputes however they like within the framework of English law. That's kind of fundamental to my position. It also happens to be true. Furthermore, I would think that it cuts out most of the sanctions prescribed by Sharia.

I don't believe for a minute that women can rest assured that they'll get real justice from a Sharia court. On the contrary, I expressed concern that participation would not be truly voluntary. The thing is, I'm not talking about changing what is already the case.

People will, and do, use many different ways of settling disputes. If they use ways that are contrary to English law, then they should face the consequences. But do you really want a Big State prohibition approach?

Incidentally, when do you sleep?

EDIT: If I have misunderstood what Lord Phillips is saying and he is advocating official endorsement of a Sharia court, then I am absolutely with you, Styrer. Is that clearer?

97. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204478 by Rachel Holmes on July 5, 2008 at 3:46 am

Styrer,

My apologies for getting your name wrong.

I really think we're talking past each other. I don't think we're anything like as far apart as you seem to think.

So far as compatible with English law, Sharia principles are - and always have been - permissible as a guide to settling disputes in this country. So unless, elsewhere in his speech, Lord Phillips said that British law should go out of its way to create a special system for Sharia mediation, he was undeniably doing nothing more than presenting the status quo.

I still don't see how my comments constitute a climb-down. I can assure you that I haven't changed my stance. If Lord Phillips had said what he did out of the blue and in no particular context, I would agree with you that it looked like a message of weakness. The fact that he said it to a group of Muslims makes his singling out of Sharia understandable. Still a poor political move, but understandable.

You can think what you like about me. I have no time for multiculturalism, if by that you mean the sort of hand-wringing "oh we mustn't condemn FGM because it's not our culture" bullshit. My position is that Muslims should be subject to the same rules as everyone else. And that includes freedom to settle their disputes in ways that are consistent with English law.

98. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204436 by Rachel Holmes on July 5, 2008 at 1:29 am

Oh joy. Just had my first experience of losing a massive post.

Stryer

Your position seemed to have been that he was quite right to say what he has. That you now - in the face of my rebuttal of your stance - should rather delimit your assertion to a 'well, he did say it to Muslims' seems an extraordinary climb-down from your initial position.

My position was that what Lord Phillips said was a matter of fact. Your rebuttal consisted of asking me why he singled out the Muslim community, if this was so. I replied that he was talking to the Muslim community at the time. I've already said that I think his comments were ill-advised, so how is this is a climb-down?

Was it not your goodself who iterated: 'Do you think everyone should be able to settle disputes as they see fit - except Muslims?', offering the obvious message that Muslims can claim a right to their own juridical and mediative measures, quite separate from those measures afforded to the rest of the UK's population?

I must be expressing myself badly.

Imagine a Venn diagram. The universal set = all legal systems. Within that set is "English Law". Overlapping with "English Law" is "Sharia Law". Also overlapping is "Halacha". Inside it are "flipping a coin", "scissors paper stone" and "the polka dance-off".

Any system that falls within the English Law set can be used to settle disputes in England. Insofar as they intersect with English Law, so can systems such as Sharia.

This means that saying "I divorce you" three times is not going to have a legal effect, whatever your imam says. And that, in my view, is right. You want a legal divorce? You go through the proper legal channels.

Fanusi

You may think so, but how do you think it's seen in the mosques of London? Everytime the Muslims cause serious trouble, we fold. We folded during the Rushdie affair, we folded over the cartoons - Europe seems hell bent on surrendering

I honestly have some sympathy with your point, which is why I think it was foolish of Lord Phillips to say what he did.

Yes, we folded in the sense that we were apologetic for causing offence, when the Islamic response was itself far more offensive. On the other hand, we gave Rushdie a knighthood and, I believe, at least one of the cartoon protestors was prosecuted for inciting violence. Last year, Parliament also passed a law to protect young women from forced marriage. It's not that one-sided.

Roland_F

Of course there should be arbitrary out of court settlements possible when both parties consent.
The problem here is with the very crucial term 'consent' which is a delusion in a woman suppressing and hating religion like Islam.

I share your concern. I've said as much.

Hopefully my answer to Stryer will address some of your comments. It's also worth pointing out that consent only gets you so far. You cannot lawfully consent to injuries that are more than "trifling". (As a student, I had the pleasure of finding this out by reading a rather colourful case on sado-masochism.) Moreover, if the CPS brought a case against a man who claimed that, say, his wife consented to her physical punishment, the onus would be on him to prove consent. Any imam that ordered a beating would be an accessory.

I have no doubt that brutal "justice" goes on in the UK in the name of Islamic principles, but we have the laws to deal with this. The problem lies in enforcing those laws, where various factors hamper effectiveness.

99. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204367 by Rachel Holmes on July 4, 2008 at 9:21 pm

Stryer,

If your contention is that there are many ways in which specific communities might wish to settle their disputes - as you at least envisage in your above question - then why did Phillips raise only one such group to the level of a public announcement as to its rights to mediate according to its own determinations?

Why did he not - at a stroke and at the same time - do so for all possible manners of - as you put it - 'settling disputes however you like'?

To follow your argument - why did he do this only for Muslims?

In part for the reason you give, no doubt. However, let's not forget that he said this (it seems - the article is a little unclear) in a speech at a Muslim centre in east London. Why he was giving a speech in a Muslim centre is a relevant question, but without seeing his diary, we have no way of knowing the significance of this.

Do you think that Muslims should be excluded from the very process by which the UK settles disputes as it sees fit?

Absolutely not. Muslims are - and should be - subject to the same laws as everyone else.

100. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204278 by Rachel Holmes on July 4, 2008 at 3:01 pm

What Lord Phillips said was not a message of our weakness. It was a statement of what has been true for donkeys': you can settle disputes however you like, as long as you operate within the law of the land.

Do you think everyone should be able to settle disputes as they see fit - except Muslims?

I've given my reservation: that participation would not be truly voluntary. I also agree with ricky173's implication that Lord Phillips' saying this is indicative of the kind of automatic and unjustified respect that is afforded to religious beliefs in this country. I also think it was politically foolish of him to say it. He must have known that, with the events of recent years, some people would think that he was offering special legal rights to Muslims.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that if the main political parties don't address the threat posed by radical Muslims in this country, people will turn to the BNP. It's immensely frustating to see them duck it.