How your government fails you

[GostHacked]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422661,00.html

Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

This is a good example of your government failing you. It is not the Muslims that will change your way of life, it is the politicians you have elected that will bend to the will of this population.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".

Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

If the British system of Law is no good for you, then you need to leave Britian. Plain and simple. So... where does Sharia Law make it's mark next?? I know there has been talk about Sharia Law in Canada, This case in Britain sets a horrible precident. Any western country now can accept Sharia Law as well as the current judicial system.

[Peter F]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422661,00.html

This is a good example of your government failing you. It is not the Muslims that will change your way of life, it is the politicians you have elected that will bend to the will of this population.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm

If the British system of Law is no good for you, then you need to leave Britian. Plain and simple. So... where does Sharia Law make it's mark next?? I know there has been talk about Sharia Law in Canada, This case in Britain sets a horrible precident. Any western country now can accept Sharia Law as well as the current judicial system.

the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Times Online (source of foxnews link in ghosthacked post above)

There is nothing new here. Britons and Canadians can use Sharia courts to settle thier disputes if they so desire. Or any other agreed upon arbitrator.

[M.Dancer]

If the British system of Law is no good for you, then you need to leave Britian. Plain and simple. So... where does Sharia Law make it's mark next?? I know there has been talk about Sharia Law in Canada, This case in Britain sets a horrible precident. Any western country now can accept Sharia Law as well as the current judicial system.

Britain was in a pot similiar to what Ontario was in a few years ago. Given that they have had denominational courts presiding over civil law cases for years, there was no good reason to deny those rights to Muslims who wanted the same. The other alternative was to end all denominational courts.

[M.Dancer]

There is nothing new here. Britons and Canadians can use Sharia courts to settle thier disputes if they so desire. Or any other agreed upon arbitrator.

Where in Canada?

Edited September 16, 2008 by M.Dancer

[GostHacked]

Britain was in a pot similiar to what Ontario was in a few years ago. Given that they have had denominational courts presiding over civil law cases for years, there was no good reason to deny those rights to Muslims who wanted the same. The other alternative was to end all denominational courts.

Religious courts should not exist. We have one judicial system for Canada and that should be it. What if it comes between a Jew and a Muslim for example... which court should they go to?? The jewish courts or the Sharia courts?? Scrap them all.

We are all one under the same law. Since we are making exceptions now, we are not all the same under the law. We are not all equal.

[guyser]

What if it comes between a Jew and a Muslim for example... which court should they go to?? The jewish courts or the Sharia courts?? Scrap them all.

Dude, you started this thread...reading comprehension is your friend.

Here....from the link..."People may legally devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process"

So if they dont agree, it goes to regular court.

What are you worried about?

[M.Dancer]

Religious courts should not exist. We have one judicial system for Canada and that should be it. What if it comes between a Jew and a Muslim for example...

Given that it is civil law we are talking about.....the chance of a jew and a muslim wanting a divorce etc etc...the chances of them wanting a relgious tribunal is remote ...and which ever they choose, it would be the choice of both parties.

[Peter F]

Where in Canada?

Everywhere.

[eyeball]

We are all one under the same law. Since we are making exceptions now, we are not all the same under the law. We are not all equal.

So the government should strive to make everyone equal after all. I agree.

[White Doors]

Given that it is civil law we are talking about.....the chance of a jew and a muslim wanting a divorce etc etc...the chances of them wanting a relgious tribunal is remote ...and which ever they choose, it would be the choice of both parties.

Granted, but in the case where it is a Muslim man and wife. The wife would undoubtedly feel pressured to try in a Sharia court by her parents, peers and of course husband where she will have virtually no rights at all and the outcome is already pre-determined. It will in effect force muslim woman to stay in marriages where who knows what may be going on behind closed doors and to give her a hopeless view of the future with no way out.

In Canada.

I know it won't affect me personally but I hate to see people have the same rights (civilly) in my country as they do in Pakistan, but color me crazy I guess.

[M.Dancer]

Everywhere.

Ummm....no, There are no Sharia courts in either Ontario which specifically ruled against them and abolished Jewish courts and in Quebec whose laws forbid binding arbitration in Family court.

Can't say for certain about the other provinces.

[GostHacked]

Dude, you started this thread...reading comprehension is your friend.

Here....from the link..."People may legally devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process"

So if they dont agree, it goes to regular court.

What are you worried about?

Should be going to the regular court in the first place... that is what I am getting at.

M Dancer

Ummm....no, There are no Sharia courts in either Ontario which specifically ruled against them and abolished Jewish courts and in Quebec whose laws forbid binding arbitration in Family court.

A move I applaude. Since we could not do Sharia law in Ontario, the decision was made to abolish the Jewish courts as well. I will just say that there is no room for religious courts in any country if there is an already established court system. So unlike Britain, Ontario trashed all other religious courts to be fair to everyone.

Guyser... my muslim/jew scenario is actually pretty bad .. I admit that.

[M.Dancer]

M Dancer

A move I applaude. Since we could not do Sharia law in Ontario, the decision was made to abolish the Jewish courts as well. I will just say that there is no room for religious courts in any country if there is an already established court system. So unlike Britain, Ontario trashed all other religious courts to be fair to everyone.

My only problem with the scrapping of the denominational courts is, I believe they had a very high satistfaction rating.

[Peter F]

Ummm....no, There are no Sharia courts in either Ontario which specifically ruled against them and abolished Jewish courts and in Quebec whose laws forbid binding arbitration in Family court.

Can't say for certain about the other provinces.

Ah. I suspect you are correct; There are no such sharia courts in the land as far as I know. What I was referring to was arbitration. Thats everywhere. Should folks involved in a dispute choose some Imam or other to arbitrate according to sharia law - and as long as that arbitrators decision not contradict the laws of the land then sharia law can be used to resolve the conflict.

This is probably unusual but not new.

[eyeball]

I trust faith-based courts aren't publicly funded. That would be even worse than publicly funded faith-based schools.

If they're strictly user-pay and rulings don't violate the Charter and if the parties agree to this form of arbitration I see little reason why it should be a problem.

[M.Dancer]

Ah. I suspect you are correct; There are no such sharia courts in the land as far as I know. What I was referring to was arbitration. Thats everywhere. Should folks involved in a dispute choose some Imam or other to arbitrate according to sharia law - and as long as that arbitrators decision not contradict the laws of the land then sharia law can be used to resolve the conflict.

This is probably unusual but not new.

No sorry that is not correct. You cannot get a legal divorce or any other matter concerning family law from an Iman or a rabbi .....you must use the civil courts and the courts must follow Canadian law..

[Peter F]

No sorry that is not correct. You cannot get a legal divorce or any other matter concerning family law from an Iman or a rabbi .....you must use the civil courts and the courts must follow Canadian law..

Oh. I wonder what arbitrators are for...

[Adhesion]

This is next step to turn Britain into a muslim country. Then they wiil demand that sharia law must have the same power as the civil law. And then - that everyone must follow sharia law first.

That's it. Once you'll wake up and realize that you live in a different country.

[Argus]

Dude, you started this thread...reading comprehension is your friend.

Here....from the link..."People may legally devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process"

So if they dont agree, it goes to regular court.

What are you worried about?

The problem is that it is highly unlikely a Muslim woman in Canada - virtually all of whom are immigrants with little or no education - would ever have the temerity to refuse to accept the "arbitration" of an imman before a Muslim tribunal. Even if she had her doubts, even if she knew she was likely to be screwed over, she would have to go along with it. To do otherwise would leave her open to having her dedication to Islam brought into question. So she's stuck with whatever unfair decision the religious authorities impose because British courts would back up that decision.

In one of the cases reported on the tribunal divided up the assets of a Muslim man according to Sharia - which gave twice as much per child to the male children as to the female children. That's the kind of nonsense you get with these backward customs.

[moderateamericain]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422661,00.html

This is a good example of your government failing you. It is not the Muslims that will change your way of life, it is the politicians you have elected that will bend to the will of this population.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm

If the British system of Law is no good for you, then you need to leave Britian. Plain and simple. So... where does Sharia Law make it's mark next?? I know there has been talk about Sharia Law in Canada, This case in Britain sets a horrible precident. Any western country now can accept Sharia Law as well as the current judicial system.

And so it begins. All things start small. Before the end of my lifetime I wont even recgonize England anymore. Englands tombstone should read "In the end England wasn't conquered by military force, it was conquered by its own laws that were set up for the minority that imposed its will on the majority."

[M.Dancer]

The problem is that it is highly unlikely a Muslim woman in Canada - virtually all of whom are immigrants with little or no education -.....

That doesn't jibe with all the muslim women who are professionals and who are in University....If I was to pull a statement out of my arse it would be the vast majority of Muslim women in Canada are educated ,,,,,because that is why they are here to begin with.

[Sulaco]

I trust faith-based courts aren't publicly funded. That would be even worse than publicly funded faith-based schools.

If they're strictly user-pay and rulings don't violate the Charter and if the parties agree to this form of arbitration I see little reason why it should be a problem.

It wouldn't matter whether they are directly founded by the government. Even if such courts are purely arbitration courts in civil cases, sooner or later you need the ability to enforce their rulings to make those courts worthwhile. Any such enforcement would have to be ultimately funded by the government. Thus no matter what, sooner or later iun the process, your government will be enforcing sharia law.

WHich is why religious arbitration would run into some grave constittuional issues in the US. But I don't think CA and GB have anywhere near the prohibition on state/religion entanglements.

I assume then that there is nothing wrong per se with permitting arbitration based on the contracting parties choice of law even if such law is religious.

Once you take away legal impediments one's only worries are then pragmatic, ideological and philosophical.

[Sulaco]

No sorry that is not correct. You cannot get a legal divorce or any other matter concerning family law from an Iman or a rabbi .....you must use the civil courts and the courts must follow Canadian law..

As I pointed out elsewhere, an arbitration court is only useful if there is an enforcement mechanism to back it - and a system for appeals. The only way to have either, unless you plan to have a separate muslim constabulary and a separate msulim government, is to involve the secular government at some point in the process. As a result you cannot avoid governmental entanglement with arbitration courts.

Mediation is a different matter - a very different matter - and might the best place for religious solutions.

[Rue]

Isn't it ironic in the racist apartheid state of Israel, Muslims have complete autonomy when it comes to family and religious law and have their own courts and sharia law system.

In fact in Israel precisely because it is democractic and allows such autonomy it has created a social phenomena that is a precursor of what will probably happen in Canada and Britain or any other nation that does the same.

In Israel within the Muslim societies where Sharia Law is enforced there are epidemic amounts of violence against women that are forgiven. It appears a similiar phenomena occurs when fundamental Jews go before Rabbinical courts so its a problem particular to both.

Of course women in Israel whether Muslim or Orthodox Jew have the right to opt out of these courts and go to a regular court that is non denominational to settle their marital and domestic disputes and criminal law as to murder and assault and battery is supposed to supercede any religious laws but what we see are the criminal and non denominational famly courts and politicians and therefore police reluctant to interfere with Sharia and Rabbinical courts or their societies when domestic violence arises.

Me personally I do not like the idea of religious courts. I believe the law should have no religious affiliations and treat everyone the same regardless of their religious beliefs. In Israel I would be typical of probably 70% of Israelis. But believers in Rabbinical and Sharia court systems together provide sufficient power in the knesset through elected members of the legislature to assure they will always exist.

That said in Canada, if someone wants to try settle a dispute by Sharia or Rabbinical doctrine or by any other such religious doctrine, those settlements still have to conform with existing family and criminal laws but like in Israel from a purely practical point of view, if a woman and child are coerced into going to these sort of seperate arbitration or mediation proceedings will anyone know? Do you really think a completely dominated and controlled woman can exercise her free rights to opt out?

Me personally I think fundamentalist religious who want the autonomy to settle disputes using their fundamentalist precepts are anti-gay, anti-women, look the other way on abuse caused by men, are bias in favour of men, and are antiquated clinging to what I consider barbaric concepts. But that is my personal opinion. Call me a fool but I tend to see women as equals and I see no need for them to cover their bodies or walk behind me. I also think those women that wear that silly hair bun style and Little House on the Prarie dresses and think its o.k. for men to screw 13 year olds and have multiple wives really do need to spend a weekend with HArvey Firestein, Miss Jay, Whoopi Goldberg and Charlie Sheen.

Yet I know many women who claim that is what they want. This is one area I would say to women, you got an issue particular to women on your hands and while I am sympathetic to the feminist perspective on it. I think this issue requires strong active participation of women and for that matter children's right groups.

Me personally the idea of a smelly man with a beard telling me what to do is a problem. I think all Judges should be like Judge Judy.

Edited September 20, 2008 by Rue