Sharia Invades Britain, Cultural Relativists Quietly Pack Their Bags

Mike Riggs | September 16, 2008

First, the big news:

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.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court....

Under the act, 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.

Next, some thoughtful analysis from the students at the GW Patriot blog:

[T]he act in question--sanctioning Muslim Sharia courts to serve as officially-recognized arbiters in British civil cases--shouldn't be so repugnant to thinking people. As liberals (and, in global terms, all of us here at the Patriot are liberal), we ought only to worry whether these courts are really as "voluntary" as they claim to be, which are similar to the Beth Din courts that decide civil cases between consenting Jews. We might find Sharia law itself repugnant, but the degree of cultural relativism inherent in liberal political institutions is there for a good reason. If we don't like it, we don't have to consent.

It's an open question just how voluntary these sorts of arrangements really can be. The possibility that participation in these courts could be coerced is there, which is worrisome enough to justify significant state oversight. That is not sufficient reason, though, to dismantle the courts entirely. We have to swallow our principles here and admit that--since we allow people to make self-harming decisions elsewhere all the time--it would make sense only to a xenophobe to stop at sanctioning a Sharia arbitration court.

Critics should examine not just the voluntary aspect of sharia, but also its fairness. How many Muslim women will be coerced by their fathers and husbands into submitting to sharia instead of taking their chances with the British court system? And how many of them, as a result of this cultural insulation, will end up being punished for—or as a result of—their gender? Anecdotal evidence suggests quite a few women will end up worse off under sharia:

There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.

Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

Almost as disturbing as the people who advocate for sharia on principle are the people who ask why the Jews get special treatment and the Muslims don't. Where are the advocates for dissolving both Beth Din and Sharia? 

Bruce Bawer saw this coming, and said as much three years ago in reason.

Addendum: The astute Jesse Walker brought this H&R post to my attention, as well as this defense of alternative forms of arbitration. Despite his seductive intellectual prowess, I maintain my disdain for sharia.

Comments

shrike|9.16.08 @ 3:31PM|#

The article states that it is civil arbitration only - so I could see this happening here. As for women who would fall victim to this Sharia court - they probably would fare better under the court than some angry male relative.

Participation would be completely voluntary I presume.

Its as nutty as being one of those wacko Christians that refuse blood transfusions here - your religion may kill you but that is your right (Minors excepted).

BDB|9.16.08 @ 3:32PM|#

Cue "Eurabia"/LGF trolls in five, four, three, two...

LGF Troll|9.16.08 @ 3:34PM|#

Women should have basic human rights, should not be forced to marry, and should not be stoned to death for being the crime of being raped.

|9.16.08 @ 3:36PM|#

Yeah, I really don't see the big deal here.

I guess Jews in England have had this kind of deal going on for 100 years or so. So it is not really a big deal.

I think I would generally be against it in the US. Because I think we all should fall under one secular law. But I would only be mildly against it. I mean if sharia law managed to minimize abuse to families, and caused generally more good than harm relative to other courts, that would be hard to argue against.

BDB|9.16.08 @ 3:36PM|#

So you're saying this legalized stoning?

I missed that.

|9.16.08 @ 3:39PM|#

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3522

|9.16.08 @ 3:40PM|#

Critics should examine not just the voluntary aspect of sharia, but also its fairness. How many Muslim women will be coerced by their fathers and husbands into submitting to sharia instead of taking their chances with the British court system? And how many of them, as a result of this cultural insulation, will end up being punished for-or as a result of-their gender? Anecdotal evidence suggests quite a few women will end up worse off under sharia:

While all of these are quite valid points, I don't see the huge distinction compared to say mandatory arbitration clauses that are tucked away in other private contracts.

As long as there are protections against coercion and force to get parties to submit to Sharia law then I can't really get too worked up about this regardless of how abhorrent I find Sharia law.

In fact I know a couple of Mulsim women here in the Chicago area that would be quite willing to submit to it

|9.16.08 @ 3:40PM|#

BOB-

My, you are quite the clairvoyant!

pfjobrien|9.16.08 @ 3:40PM|#

"Where are the advocates for dissolving both Beth Din and Sharia?"

Right here baby, right here.

There's already a mechanism to enforce mutually accepted culturally based decisions... it's called contract law.

BDB|9.16.08 @ 3:41PM|#

All the British have to do is dis-establish their tax payer funded church and then nobody would have the silly religious course. Why they refuse to do it is beyond me.

BDB|9.16.08 @ 3:41PM|#

er, "Silly religious courts".

|9.16.08 @ 3:44PM|#

There's already a mechanism to enforce mutually accepted culturally based decisions... it's called contract law.

And if two people enter into a contract that dictates that disputes will be arbitrated by institution X following ruleset Y, where X and Y are "Sharia court" and "Sharia law", then what?

|9.16.08 @ 3:44PM|#

Ugh. This makes me sick.

United Against Sharia|9.16.08 @ 3:44PM|#

Hey |, that's interesting. Check out this shocking video of Muslim abuses in Europe!

|9.16.08 @ 3:44PM|#

I am expecting this thread to get much more lively and colorful than this though.

Dondero and Orange Line Special and their types should show up soon.

OLS, you should actually make an argument though, and not just link to your blog. I don't get your blog.

|9.16.08 @ 3:44PM|#

Chicago Tom-

How about those mandatory arbitration clauses to which credit card companies, computer companies, banks, insurance companies, etc. force folks to adhere? Often a consumer learns that he is bound by a mandatory arbitration clause AFTER she has purchased the product or service in question.

Does not compute|9.16.08 @ 3:47PM|#

"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.

->"Under the act, 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.

I'll laugh at feministing threads as much if not more than the next guy, but domestic violence sabsolutely should be a criminal, not civil matter. And almost by definition, victims are not in a correct emotional or structural position to consent to bring the mattter to arbitration. (which is what this is)

shrike|9.16.08 @ 3:48PM|#

It would be interesting to see the reaction to a government sponsored haven for British Muslim women who wanted to escape this putrid religion. The jihadists would go into overdrive and might even become libertarians.

Doctor Whom|9.16.08 @ 3:49PM|#

"The article states that it is civil arbitration only - so I could see this happening here."

Yea. Under the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. 1+), contracts to arbitrate are enforceable. A contract could specify that a sharia court would arbitrate the dispute just as it could specify that the American Arbitration Association would arbitrate it.

Provided none of the standard grounds apply for making a contract void or unenforceable, e.g., duress or fraud, a sharia arbitration provision should be enforceable.

TallDave|9.16.08 @ 3:50PM|#

The good news is, Saudi judges have ruled it's OK to murder "sorcerers" who broadcast unIslamic material.

No more BBC!

BDB|9.16.08 @ 3:51PM|#

The real issue is ending a government-sanctioned, taxpayer supported "official" church. That's the only reason either Muslims or Orthodox Jews or Scientologists or whoever can ask for these courts.

TallDave|9.16.08 @ 3:52PM|#

It would be interesting to see the reaction to a government sponsored haven for British Muslim women who wanted to escape this putrid religion.

A judicious mix of lawsuits and car bombs.

Bingo|9.16.08 @ 3:55PM|#

Well it looks like Amsterdam isn't the only place you can go and get legally stoned

NotThatDavid|9.16.08 @ 3:55PM|#

My initial reaction was that provided there are adequate protections to ensure that the "voluntary" decision to enter arbitration really is voluntary, there's nothing wrong with this. Then I saw the "domestic violence" clause.

|9.16.08 @ 3:56PM|#

As distasteful and medieval as sharia is, people have the right to arbitrate civil disputes the way they want to. I would think in the US they could (and do) do this now merely by going to an "arbitrator" who just makes his decisions according to sharia.

While its treatment of women as of lesser value is repulsive, if women enter into it freely, that is their decision. Second-guessing their decision (as long as they are not physically coerced) is also treating them as lesser and unable to make their own decisions.

|9.16.08 @ 3:56PM|#

Ay, why do I get the feeling this is a step backwards for Muslim women in Britain?

|9.16.08 @ 3:56PM|#

A judicious mix of lawsuits and car bombs.

And riots! Don't forget riots!

BDB|9.16.08 @ 3:57PM|#

Yeah, but it would never get legal sanction here, because church and state are separated.

|9.16.08 @ 3:58PM|#

So, what's the queen doing about this? That whole "defender of the faith" business, is that just fluff?

-jcr

|9.16.08 @ 3:58PM|#

While its treatment of women as of lesser value is repulsive, if women enter into it freely, that is their decision. Second-guessing their decision (as long as they are not physically coerced)

And you think that this won't happen in a domestic abuse case while living in a community that doesn't support the rights of women?

|9.16.08 @ 4:00PM|#

if women enter into it freely, that is their decision.

|9.16.08 @ 4:00PM|#

How about those mandatory arbitration clauses to which credit card companies, computer companies, banks, insurance companies, etc. force folks to adhere? Often a consumer learns that he is bound by a mandatory arbitration clause AFTER she has purchased the product or service in question.

libertymike,

Most consumers learn about them after the fact because they don't bother to read their contract.

I don't like them much (especially ones that try and limit your right to appeal and force you to have to travel to a destination of the companies choosing etc), but they are in the contract that you sign with those companies. If more people refused to sign contracts because of those types of things maybe things would change -- but most consumers only give a shit about their rights as consumers after the fact.

Granted there have been some cases recently where the arbitration clauses have been nullified by the courts because of the one-sided nature and how stacked they were against the consumer and how little protection they offered, but I don't think those types of arbitration clauses are a very apt comparison with this Sharia law example.

In this case it would seem like both parties have to affirmatively agree and it can't quietly get slipped in.

|9.16.08 @ 4:04PM|#

Dammit, got my HTML tags messed up.

What I meant to add is:

If a woman in the UK "agrees" to a sharia court, the chances are very high that she's doing so out of fear of getting her throat cut. The UK has fucked up here, big time. This is almost as big a mistake as their insane policy of supression of the right to self-defense.

-jcr

Sambo|9.16.08 @ 4:05PM|#

"Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court...."

What if an Anglican wants to bring a civil suit against a Muslim shop owner (ore vice-versa)? Which court has jurisdiction?

|9.16.08 @ 4:07PM|#

And you think that this won't happen in a domestic abuse case while living in a community that doesn't support the rights of women?

What part of "as long as not physically coerced" don't you get?

This is a fucking lose/lose situation. Either you protect the poor wimmenz from the bad Muslim men, thereby probably helping a lot but also treating them like children, or you treat them as equals and allow them to make poor decisions and possibly even have to deal with coercion.

A relocation program for those who feel threatened is probably the best solution.

Neu Mejican|9.16.08 @ 4:08PM|#

My 2 cents:

1)Arbitration is always a good alternative to the courts in civil matters...as long as both parties agree.

2) Domestic violence cases should not be considered civil matters. As mentioned above they are a criminal matter.

Dagny T.|9.16.08 @ 4:09PM|#

people have the right to arbitrate civil disputes the way they want to.

Right. Although there should be no need to enshrine specific religious forms of arbitration in law, any kind that both parties agree to should be fair game.

|9.16.08 @ 4:09PM|#

Rather than complain about this, I say join the fun. I intend to open my own arbitration business: Thunderdome. I haven't worked out the details, but I think that it'll start with two going in.

|9.16.08 @ 4:10PM|#

"Second-guessing their decision (as long as they are not physically coerced) is also treating them as lesser and unable to make their own decisions"

There are other ways to coerce... not just physically. These women might feel they have very little or no option but to "agree" to sharia arbitration.

|9.16.08 @ 4:14PM|#

There are other ways to coerce... not just physically. These women might feel they have very little or no option but to "agree" to sharia arbitration

True, rana. Like I said, it is lose/lose. But at a certain point people need to take care of themselves. Some of them will figure out that they need to get out. Some won't. That sucks. What can you do?

The Extispicator|9.16.08 @ 4:15PM|#

Yeah, the civil/criminal blurring is what makes this wrong. In addition to making domestic violence a "civil" issue (I guess because women are property?), what if a sharia judge decides your business conduct amounted to stealing and orders your hands to be cut off?

Warty|9.16.08 @ 4:17PM|#

Muslims in Britain always make me think of that one scene in Children of Men . Allauh Akhbar!

Kill 'em all, I says.

|9.16.08 @ 4:20PM|#

Rather than complain about this, I say join the fun. I intend to open my own arbitration business: Thunderdome. I haven't worked out the details, but I think that it'll start with two going in.

Or the Two-Face method: "you're a lucky man...but your driver--he's not. (BLAM)"

|9.16.08 @ 4:21PM|#

Chicago Tom-

One of my best buddies foolishly purchased a Gateway computer and 10 days later he received the contract and warranty in the mail. The mandatory arbitration clause was in the contract. Hence, he was not forewarned. Recently, my wife obtained a new credit card in a balance transfer and 17 days after receiving and activating the card, we get the credit card agreement with the mandatory arbitration clause. There was nothing stated in the offer that indicated that one would be subject to mandatory arbitration if one took up the offer to transfer the balance from another credit card.

Of course, the mandatory arbitration clauses of which we speak have very little applicability to the sharia law option for british muslims. Your post gave me an excuse to rant about these mandatory arbitration clauses-not that I need an excuse to rant.

Sambo|9.16.08 @ 4:21PM|#

"What if an Anglican wants to bring a civil suit against a Muslim shop owner (ore vice-versa)? Which court has jurisdiction?"

Should have added in regard to this:

"The possibility that participation in these courts could be coerced is there, which is worrisome enough to justify significant state oversight."

|9.16.08 @ 4:21PM|#

Sharia courts? In the UK? This is clearly a Zionist attempt to turn us all into Israel.

|9.16.08 @ 4:28PM|#

But...but...but... Immigration is good for the economy! Muslims do the jobs that Brits won't do!

|9.16.08 @ 4:28PM|#

"True, rana. Like I said, it is lose/lose. But at a certain point people need to take care of themselves. Some of them will figure out that they need to get out. Some won't. That sucks. What can you do?"

True. But that is what I find unsettling about this decision. Perhaps, there are women living in Britain that are trying to get away from the Muslim strong-hold on other nations' laws but still maintain their Muslim faith (for whatever reason)... you just know that they are going to screwed somehow...
I just don't like this idea...

MAX HATS|9.16.08 @ 4:29PM|#

Why should we have any say in how the United Kingdom chooses to run their own country?

|9.16.08 @ 4:31PM|#

This is Britain condemning women to unequal treatment under the law for the sake of cultural sensitivity.

Why do these groups immigrate to Britain? It's obviously not for the freedom Western culture affords. It's for the economic freedom. They are fine with that, but reject the social freedom that allows the economic freedom to flourish. Britain is letting a tiny portion of itself turn into autonomous zone where culture is allowed to strip away rights. It's ridiculous.

And let me agree that domestic abuse is not a civil matter.

Dagny T.|9.16.08 @ 4:32PM|#

Perhaps, there are women living in Britain that are trying to get away from the Muslim strong-hold on other nations' laws but still maintain their Muslim faith (for whatever reason)... you just know that they are going to screwed somehow...

I'm not sure if you followed the recent controversy over polygamous communities in Texas, but the arguments were similar. Can we know for sure that no abuse is taking place? Of course not. We can't know that in any community. That doesn't make it okay to limit people's choices. Not even if the statistical likelihood is higher in certain demographics.

|9.16.08 @ 4:32PM|#

MAX HATS,

Yeah! Because we all know that the British never criticize America or Americans!

|9.16.08 @ 4:39PM|#

As others have pointed out, the domestic violence thing does not belong in a civil court. It is a criminal matter. Period. End of discussion. Case closed.

In many (most?) U.S. jurisdictions domestic violence is prosecuted even if the victim is unwilling to press charges. Due to the general fuckedupedness of abusive relationships I fully support that way of dealing with the problem.

|9.16.08 @ 4:40PM|#

Little to add.

If its voluntary and purely civil, then, whatever, dude. Even if women would get the short end in those cases (by our standards), they can elect to go into sharia courts for reasons of their own (social acceptance in their community, the warm glow of piety, I really don't care).

Criminal matters? Not so much.

And ensuring the voluntariness of the civil participation is a tough one. I, for one, don't count "pressure" from relatives or peers as rendering a decision involuntary, as long as the pressure doesn't involve force or threats of force. Still, very difficult to police.

|9.16.08 @ 4:40PM|#

Muslim subjugation of women isn't just an aspect of it's evil, it's the very source of it. Islam discriminates against half it's followers from the very start and any fool who thinks Islam will respect their rights deserves to die under their swords. So line up you Brits, men and women alike, and lay your heads down on the block before the Q gets to long. You already gave up your guns which is why this is happening to you now. What fools you are.

|9.16.08 @ 4:41PM|#

This is Britain condemning women to unequal treatment under the law for the sake of cultural sensitivity

This is Britain allowing women to condemn themselves to unequal treatment under the law if they agree to sharia arbitration. Technically. Now, there is always the possibility of coercion, but if there is, then it should be reported to the police.

When do women get to make their own bad choices? I'm sure there are plenty of younger boys who are coerced and beaten. We often expect them to take care of themselves. Why continue to treat women as made of glass?

|9.16.08 @ 4:41PM|#

Neu-

I wouldn't be too quick to opine that arbitration is always a good alternative to the courts in civil matters as long as the parties agree. Sometimes it can be a horrible alternative. Why?

1. Arbitration is not necessarily inexpensive.

2. Arbitration is not necessarily less expensive than going right to court.

3. Generally, the rules of evidence do not apply at arbitration hearings. This is no small matter. Suppose you have a case subject to arbitration and the only evidence the other side has is hearsay evidence that would never be admitted in a civil trial? In that event, Arbitration is not looking like such a good alternative.

4. The findings and analysis of an arbitrator need not be in writing.

As for your qualifier, "as long as the parties agree", that is a mighty big qualifier. Take collective bargaining agreements. Almost always, they contain mandatory arbitration clauses. So, if a union employee is aggrieved by some decision of management, he must hope that the union agrees to take his case to arbitration-as he does not even have the right to trigger the arbitration. Moreover, the union employee has very little recourse available to him-he has very restricted rights to sue either his employer and/or his union.

|9.16.08 @ 4:42PM|#

What if an Anglican wants to bring a civil suit against a Muslim shop owner (ore vice-versa)? Which court has jurisdiction?

I assume that the civil courts are the default forum, that can be opted out of only with the consent of both/all parties. So, this dispute goes to civil court unless both parties agree to remove it to sharia court.

|9.16.08 @ 4:42PM|#

"Almost as disturbing as the people who advocate for sharia on principle are the people who ask why the Jews get special treatment and the Muslims don't."

Completely OT (well, maybe not, on these trends), I note that not long ago the concept of Jews getting "special treatment" (Sonderbehandlung) was substantially less benign than even these stupid British practices.

|9.16.08 @ 4:43PM|#

I wouldn't be too quick to opine that arbitration is always a good alternative to the courts in civil matters as long as the parties agree.

I generally resist mandatory arbitration clauses with one exception - contracts where we want any disputes kept nice and quiet. Arbitration can be done confidentially.

Former Credit Bureau Employee|9.16.08 @ 4:46PM|#

"
How about those mandatory arbitration clauses to which credit card companies, computer companies, banks, insurance companies, etc. force folks to adhere? Often a consumer learns that he is bound by a mandatory arbitration clause AFTER she has purchased the product or service in question."

Here's what I learned. If a credit card company screws you over, just stop paying them. There's really nothing they can do beyond hollow threats.

|9.16.08 @ 4:46PM|#

Why continue to treat women as made of glass?

Because they always seem to break something when I shove them down the stairs. Duh.

Anyway, I don't see them as being able to make a free choice. It's the coercion feedback loop. If they can't go to a regular court in the first place, how is being able to go the police about that possible. One people, one law, baby.

|9.16.08 @ 4:50PM|#

J sub D-

"I fully support that way of dealing with the problem." That way just happens to piss all over the sixth amendment.

Gimme Back My Clit|9.16.08 @ 4:52PM|#

"Ay, why do I get the feeling this is a step backwards for Muslim women in Britain?"

Trust your feelings, rana

Pierre\'|9.16.08 @ 4:53PM|#

"And riots! Don't forget riots!"

That would never happen.

|9.16.08 @ 4:56PM|#

Because they always seem to break something when I shove them down the stairs. Duh.

Yeah, but you only do that when they're pregnant and won't get an abortion, so it's not that often.

Anyway, I don't see them as being able to make a free choice

They can always walk out the door (or sneak out) and never come back. Again, how do you determine who is making a free choice and who isn't? There is coercion in any family.

Understand that I don't like the sharia arbitration at all. But people must be allowed to make their own choices--including women (obviously). Deciding you know what's best for that 15-year-old Muslim girl is bullshit, and if I did it to you you'd scream bloody murder.

|9.16.08 @ 4:58PM|#

The domestic violence issue is a huge sticking point. Why is that a civil matter subject to arbitration when one party (the woman) is very likely to be unable to object or properly consent? For marriage, divorce and inheritance, this is just another version of contract law. If the parties want arbitration in court X, isnt that up to them?
On the other hand, the chances of a woman freely saying she does NOT want a shariah court to examine her case are rather low. But the damage should be limited and in a liberal society, how can you deny this option in principle? In any case, the real drama may start when some woman DOES opt out and gets beaten up for her pains. The subsequent brouhaha may be educational...

|9.16.08 @ 4:58PM|#

RC Dean-

Good point. I agree that arbitration could be a much better alternative-in some cases, particularly where you have two or more sophisticated parties who can afford to pay their counsel to structrue the arbitration provisions in a detailed manner to their liking.

Orange Line Special|9.16.08 @ 4:58PM|#

You know what's charming? Libruhtarians sounding the alarm about the impacts of the policies they support (OpenBorders)... after those policies are shown to be extremely dangerous.

Gorgeous Gus the Wonder Dog|9.16.08 @ 5:00PM|#

"In many (most?) U.S. jurisdictions domestic violence is prosecuted even if the victim is unwilling to press charges."

Total BS.

|9.16.08 @ 5:02PM|#

J sub D-

"I fully support that way of dealing with the problem." That way just happens to piss all over the sixth amendment.

Must...try...to...be..civil.

Where do you read in

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

that victims must press charges?

|9.16.08 @ 5:07PM|#

A person should have the freedom to role-play using the rules laid down by their particular Dungeon Master. If the DM keeps trying to punish your 9th level Ranger just because you took the last Mountain Dew, then you might need to find another gaming group.

|9.16.08 @ 5:09PM|#

"They can always walk out the door (or sneak out) and never come back. Again, how do you determine who is making a free choice and who isn't?"

I wish it were that simple. It's not easy to leave behind family, community, where do they go?... and OK, I know its their choice to stay... but WHY, for the love of God, further stack the deck in favor of the oppressor by giving them judicial power? The laws to settle civil disputes already exist. So why do it? So we can all get along?
The Brits are a bunch of wimps...

|9.16.08 @ 5:09PM|#

"In many (most?) U.S. jurisdictions domestic violence is prosecuted even if the victim is unwilling to press charges."

Total BS.

Must...try...to...be..civil.

Brilliant reasoning sir. I salute you.

|9.16.08 @ 5:11PM|#

Epi-

There must be fifty ways to leave your sharia....you just get off the camel, Hamill, ban the koran, wo-man and get yourself free.

|9.16.08 @ 5:14PM|#

J sub D-

The confrontation clause. No witness, no case.

Neu Mejican|9.16.08 @ 5:14PM|#

libertymike,

You've clearly done more thinking on this issue than I, but I think my point was that having arbitration as an option in addition to civil courts is always a good thing.

Mediation is, actually, the most important option to have on your tool-belt.

So the state sanctioning of people exercising the additional option of a Sharia court seems to be no problem.

JsubD,

I don't see it either...

|9.16.08 @ 5:14PM|#

"There must be fifty ways to leave your sharia....you just get off the camel, Hamill, ban the koran, wo-man and get yourself free."

LOL!!!

|9.16.08 @ 5:17PM|#

J sub D-

Why should the prosecution be able to rely upon a police report with no witness to authenticate it or to testify as to what actually happened?

Gorgeous Gus the Wonder Dog|9.16.08 @ 5:17PM|#

"Must...try...to...be..civil.

Brilliant reasoning sir. I salute you."

If that were true ("In many (most?) U.S. jurisdictions domestic violence is prosecuted even if the victim is unwilling to press charges.") the dockets would be fully clogged for decades.

Work with a lot with battered women do you?

Neu Mejican|9.16.08 @ 5:17PM|#

Libertymike,

Police man/neighbor X witnesses domestic violence.

State presses charges.

|9.16.08 @ 5:18PM|#

I wish it were that simple. It's not easy to leave behind family, community, where do they go?... and OK, I know its their choice to stay... but WHY, for the love of God, further stack the deck in favor of the oppressor by giving them judicial power?

I know it's not that simple. It's actually far too complex to boil down to one solution fits all. And they don't have judicial power, they have arbitration. Which means you have to agree to it first, and then have to abide by the decision. With a judge, you don't have to agree to anything.

It's a shitty situation.

There must be fifty ways to leave your sharia

Mike, you're still crazy after all these years :-)

Ayatollah of RocknRollah|9.16.08 @ 5:18PM|#

libertymike-

A battered wife can refuse to press charges, but she can't refuse to show up to court if subpoenaed. Hell she might even be called up and be uncooperative or lie just to get her shit head husband out of trouble. Thats why it isn't worth it to go forward a lot of times if the victim refuses to press charges, but with domestic abuse cases prosecutors will chance it anyway.

|9.16.08 @ 5:19PM|#

Neu-

I agree that arbitration can be a much better alternative. Sometimes.

|9.16.08 @ 5:21PM|#

The Wolfman lives!

Gorgeous Gus the Wonder Dog|9.16.08 @ 5:23PM|#

"Work with a lot with battered women do you?"

I do...

http://www.rileycenter.org/domestic-violence-statistics.html

http://www.aardvarc.org/dv/statistics.shtml

|9.16.08 @ 5:24PM|#

Epi, once they "agree" to arbitration:
"Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court...."

rich|9.16.08 @ 5:24PM|#

What about protections for minors? Can my parents agree to have my case handled via Sharia arbitration?

Epi brings up the notion of knowing what's best for a 15-year old girl. It's fairly likely she doesn't understand her options and her parents may not have her best interests at heart if it risks their community standing. What then?

CSI: Law & Order|9.16.08 @ 5:27PM|#

J sub D-

The confrontation clause. No witness, no case.

How does anyone get convicted of murder in your world, mike?

|9.16.08 @ 5:28PM|#

Epi, once they "agree" to arbitration:
"Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court...."

rana, IANAL but I think that is always the case with arbitration. Once you agree to it, you are bound by law to adhere to the arbitrator's decision. Otherwise, if you didn't like it, you'd just walk out.

|9.16.08 @ 5:29PM|#

why do I get the feeling this is a step backwards for Muslim women in Britain?

Because you are against freedom of choice?
Because you think you know what is best for other women?
I could continue to speculate, but why don't you tell us why?

|9.16.08 @ 5:30PM|#

Shitty situation indeed... yet, "understandable" if we were talking about Pakistan. I still can't get over these Brits kowtowing to the Muslim community in GB.

Why can't the say "listen people, we already have laws to settle these disputes, and NO, we wont allow your sharia arbitration because we have seen what types of rulings you hand down and we believe women deserve equal treatment under the law"

|9.16.08 @ 5:31PM|#

Neu and J sub D-

Neu's 5:17 post-I agree. In that situation, I assume that the cop and the neighbor will testify-therefore, the accused will have the benefit of confronting the witnesses against him.

I am opposed to the prosecutors pressing cases where the only witness to the alleged act of domestic violence is the alleged victim who does not want to testify, disappears or recants. IMO, prosecuting such cases and supporting the prosecution of such cases is genuflecting to a politically correct special interest, not the interests of justice.

|9.16.08 @ 5:31PM|#

This has been a great discussion, folks, but I have to go swim. Later.

|9.16.08 @ 5:33PM|#

One of my best buddies foolishly purchased a Gateway computer and 10 days later he received the contract and warranty in the mail. The mandatory arbitration clause was in the contract. Hence, he was not forewarned. Recently, my wife obtained a new credit card in a balance transfer and 17 days after receiving and activating the card, we get the credit card agreement with the mandatory arbitration clause. There was nothing stated in the offer that indicated that one would be subject to mandatory arbitration if one took up the offer to transfer the balance from another credit card.

LibertyMike,

I believe with Credit Cards you can close the account and pay off any balance you have. with the gateway computer example, you might be able to return the thing if you don't like the arbitration agreements.

But I agree that those types of arbitration agreements suck and the courts have been nullifying them. Those types of agreements are similar to EULAs in software where you don't get to see it until it's been opened and now the stores won't take it back. (Although I believe those are being challenged as well though most people don't really flinch and just click "I Accept the Terms")

But like you said that isn't what we are talking about. Arbitration is good when both parties know and agree to it up front.

My company recently settled a contract dispute via arbitration and it worked out rather well for us in terms of both the outcome/ruling and the costs saved on lawyers and such. I think typically most business to business arbitration agreements are good for everyone involved and those seem to be what this Sharia law thing is modeled after.

|9.16.08 @ 5:33PM|#

If that were true ("In many (most?) U.S. jurisdictions domestic violence is prosecuted even if the victim is unwilling to press charges.") the dockets would be fully clogged for decades.

Work with a lot with battered women do you?

No. I read, remember and can google to butress my assertations.

|9.16.08 @ 5:35PM|#

CSI/Law & Order-

I know that prosecutors try and successfully convince judges and juries to convict criminal defendants all the time upon the basis of nothing more than circumstantial evidence without any witnesses. No, I don't like that.

|9.16.08 @ 5:45PM|#

J sub D-

As for victim empoerment, there must be fifty ways to leave your abuser..you just dial 911, for fun, get a TRO, on Joe, then change the lock, on the jock, and get yourself free......

|9.16.08 @ 5:47PM|#

IANAL, but I believe witnesses can be, and often are, legally required to testify to events that do not involve self incrimination. This would seemingly apply to domestic violence victims/witnesses.

|9.16.08 @ 5:52PM|#

I know that prosecutors try and successfully convince judges and juries to convict criminal defendants all the time upon the basis of nothing more than circumstantial evidence without any witnesses. No, I don't like that.

Damn this thread is getting off topic.
But, I can't let that pass.
The Unreliability of Eyewitness Identifications

The conventional wisdom, particularly among non-lawyers, is that circumstantial evidence is generally less reliable than eyewitness testimony. People sometimes say that a case is "only circumstantial" to mean that the evidence is weak. A strong case, according to this view, includes the testimony of an eyewitness.

In fact, contrary to popular opinion, circumstantial evidence is often extremely reliable. Blood of the victim that makes a DNA match with blood found on the defendant's clothing, credit card records that place the defendant at the scene of the crime, and ballistics analysis that shows a bullet removed from the victim to have been fired from the defendant's gun are all forms of circumstantial evidence. Yet, in the absence of a credible allegation of police tampering, such evidence is usually highly reliable and informative.

At the same time, numerous psychological studies have shown that human beings are not very good at identifying people they saw only once for a relatively short period of time. The studies reveal error rates of as high as fifty percent - a frightening statistic given that many convictions may be based largely or solely on such testimony.

Gorgeous Gus the Wonder Dog|9.16.08 @ 5:52PM|#

"No. I read, remember and can google to butress my assertations."

From you reference:

"More than one-third of U.S. police departments reported adopting pro-arrest policies because of empirical data showing arrest to be a deterrent against future spousal violence. Recent data suggest that arrest may actually increase abuse for some women. The number of jurisdictions implementing mandatory prosecution has increased, even though data on the benefits and drawbacks of the policy are scarce."

I'll cede your point that that the pro-arrest policy has been adopted in "many US jurisdictions", but actual prosecutions as a percent of acts of abuse? No way.

It's a theory v. practice thing.

|9.16.08 @ 6:00PM|#

This is all so absurd. Fear, not justice, is behind the Brits disastrous decision to allow Islam to have a say in it's justice system. It's just a matter of time before they regret it. The sad thing is Islam believes the end justifies the means. They use this to judge if God is on their side or not... if it happens, God wanted it to happen. The only thing they understand is force against them that makes them fail. God is seen in their defeat just as much as in their victories, maybe even more. We in the west must define, by force, what God is trying to tell them. If outcome defines morality for Islam, then we have to completely control that outcome. They view our efforts to accommodate them as weakness and fear is the greatest weapon they try using against us. So far the Brits have shown no backbone and that will cost them dearly in the future.

Fluffy|9.16.08 @ 6:12PM|#

I wish it were that simple. It's not easy to leave behind family, community, where do they go?...

Honestly, I have to say: Too bad.

Remember, the people who make up the family and the community are free too. And that means they get to make free decisions about their associations, too. And if one of their decisions is, "We don't associate with chicks who won't arbitrate property disputes in Sharia forums", too bad.

"I am oppressed by your potential refusal to associate with me!" is an absurd claim and an unjust claim.

I agree with the other posters who have said that no element of criminal law, no matter how trivial, should be part of this plan. But I don't have a problem with civil matters being arbitrated privately, and "privately" includes crazy Muslim imams as arbitrators.

|9.16.08 @ 6:17PM|#

I'll cede your point that that the pro-arrest policy has been adopted in "many US jurisdictions", but actual prosecutions as a percent of acts of abuse? No way.

Never said it was. I said I support prosection for domestic violence even if the victim doesn't wish to. It's still against the law to beat your wife. I kinda like the idea of cowardly bully assholes facing justice.

Not buying it|9.16.08 @ 6:36PM|#

But Islam is such a peaceful religion. We only stone our women if they get out of line. And the burnings only happen if they want to actually have a say so in who we force them to be a slave to, I mean, be married to and take abuse from for the rest of their lives.

Paul|9.16.08 @ 6:47PM|#

If participation is voluntary, why would the government recognized judicial system have to sanction them? I don't have a problem with people in a close family, or sect setting their own rules on civil matters such as divorce (to name only one), but what does that have to do with the law?

It's not Sharia I have a problem with, it's a Western government's sanctioning and (presumably) protection of same.

It's like this, if a parallel legal system is set up, and the established judicial system recognizes it, then it only goes to follow that enforcement may fall to the hands of the established legal system. Meaning that a government is not only sanctioning the existence of the sharia laws or legal system, but enforcing its outcome.

The big question, to me, seems to be enforcement- and how is it carried out, not if such a system exists or not.

|9.16.08 @ 6:49PM|#

Divorce is a civil matter, no? Hardline, fundamentalist muslims have been known to carry out honor-killings when confronted by divorce. I am not saying that the Brits would allow this, nor am I saying that sharia arbitration would rule in favor of honor killings, but as a Muslim woman, wouldn't this make you think twice before asking for a divorce (and even more so) in a sharia arbitration?
And so you say "too bad" "she can opt out of sharia arbitration and run away or call the police"...
Maybe so. Pero que necesidad? (what is the point?) of now allowing sharia arbitration to settle civil disputes when existing laws are adequate? I agree with Sugarfree: "This is Britain condemning women to unequal treatment under the law for the sake of cultural sensitivity"

Paul|9.16.08 @ 6:53PM|#

And so you say "too bad" "she can opt out of sharia arbitration and run away or call the police"...
Maybe so. Pero que necesidad? (what is the point?) of now allowing sharia arbitration to settle civil disputes when existing laws are adequate?

Rana, see my post above. I agree: What's the point? It all comes down to enforcement.

|9.16.08 @ 6:54PM|#

Killtoohey | September 16, 2008, 6:00pm | #
The sad thing is Islam believes the end justifies the means. They use this to judge if God is on their side or not... if it happens, God wanted it to happen.
...
God is seen in their defeat just as much as in their victories, maybe even more.

Hrrm, this sounds real familiar. Just can't place it. Let me think a second.

Wait, I got it!

All religions have followers that are like this. It was God's will that I loose my job, that Aunt Mary died and that my daughter got knocked up all in the same day. It MUST be a SIGN!! From GOD!!

Bubba|9.16.08 @ 7:00PM|#

My culture says that women have to do all the cooking and cleaning, and that they don't need to be even thinking about getting themselves a job and leaving their man like some smartypants lezbo they see on TV. They're supposed to bring us men a beer when we say to and lay down when we tell them to. If not, then she gets the back of my hand or worse.

So, would that be protected? Cause cool, it's about time. Maybe them Muslims ain't so backwards after all, and if they get their ways bowed down to, then so should my people.

|9.16.08 @ 7:04PM|#

The thing about domestic violence prosecution is that prosecutors usually don't (and shouldn't) prosecute cases where they're obviously going to lose, and our standard of criminal guilt is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

If the prosecution says, "Bob hit Jane," and Jane gets on the stand and says, "No, he didn't hit me," that's usually going to create reasonable doubt. Even if you, the prosecutor, and your buddy, the policeman, really know that Bob did hit Jane, and that she's lying about it because she's convinced herself he'll change/she has Stockholm/she's afraid of worse violence down the road/whatever.

And, ugly as it is, that's how it's supposed to work. Our legal system is set up to defend the rights of the accused. Sometimes, that means that obviously guilty accused people are going to get away with it. That's particularly likely to be the case in domestic violence. It's nasty, but it's probably better than the alternative.

|9.16.08 @ 7:09PM|#

I am frankly amazed at how many believe the state should and must have the last say in anything legal, and that any attempt by an individual to opt into a different mechanism for deciding civil disputes must be outlawed.

I assume that all of those who are against this pretty tame allowance for litigants to mutually agree to take civil matters to an alternate court are utterly and completely against, say, jury nullification. After all, what right to individuals have under such thinking to determine legal matters differently from how the state would determine them?

Tacos mmm...|9.16.08 @ 7:11PM|#

There are other ways to coerce... not just physically. These women might feel they have very little or no option but to "agree" to sharia arbitration.

If you set the bar low enough, there is very little in the way of contractual exchange that cannot be considered coercive. A rental contract, for example - after all, in most climates, shelter is necessary to survive. You can't forgo shelter, which is a form of coercive pressure to find housing. One can say something similar about food, or medicine.

|9.16.08 @ 7:14PM|#

All religions have followers that are like this.

Sorry Kwix but you're wrong.
Plus, as an agnostic, the last thing I was advocating was religion of any kind. I didn't say I believe God needs to defeat them, I'm saying rational men must, and if they do, Islam will view it as the will of God and accept it as such. It's the only thing they will accept and we're fools to think otherwise. As long as they're defeated I don't give a shit what moronic rational they codify themselves with, God's will, not God's will, who cares as long as they accept that our freedom doesn't have to conform to their likes and dislikes. It's f-in freedom after all.

|9.16.08 @ 7:44PM|#

Mikep
>

What good is the concept of jury nullification if the jury hearing a drug dealers case is filled with drug dealers. Jury nullification presupposes a fair jury, not a jury with a religious agenda or any other agenda other then blind justice. There's a reason for blind justice, and religion is a big one.

Your perspective on the " Tame " is very liberal to say the least.

|9.16.08 @ 7:54PM|#

What good is the concept of jury nullification if the jury hearing a drug dealers case is filled with drug dealers.

Uhh... The drug dealer might be acquitted?

|9.16.08 @ 8:01PM|#

Uhh... The drug dealer might be acquitted?

And that's justice in your view ?

|9.16.08 @ 8:10PM|#

Of course. Drug dealing is generally a mutually voluntary activity between consenting adults. It should not be illegal, and anyone tried for it should not be convicted or punished.

Les|9.16.08 @ 8:14PM|#

Uhh... The drug dealer might be acquitted?

And that's justice in your view ?

You weren't asking me, but I just wanted to point out that there are a lot of decent drug dealers out there. If the state is prevented from locking up a harmless individual for merely engaging in a politically incorrect trade, then, yes, I think that's justice.

|9.16.08 @ 8:26PM|#

Drug dealing was a poor choice for me to use as an example of the point I'm trying to make. Let me redirect this by asking, what is the purpose of the rule of law to begin with ? Moral rule of law is predicated on the defense of the individual, not the cultural or religious groups within the society. Blacks in America don't get to demand only black juries, neither do whites, or Christians, or anyone else. Is that unfair in your view?

Famous Mortimer|9.16.08 @ 8:27PM|#

"If you set the bar low enough, there is very little in the way of contractual exchange that cannot be considered coercive. A rental contract, for example - after all, in most climates, shelter is necessary to survive. You can't forgo shelter, which is a form of coercive pressure to find housing. One can say something similar about food, or medicine."

You do realize that we're talking about a human relationship here, and not a business deal, don't you? There are emotions involved in deciding to leave such a situation. It's not simply a pragmatic business decision.

Saying "too bad" may satisfy your sociopathic tendencies, but thankfully you're a minority.

I think I'm recognizing a trend here. Libertarians routinely make false analogies by failing to display even a basic understanding of human nature.

It's like the poster who compared slaves to cattle by suggesting that they were at least taken care of.

There should only be one system of law that applies to every citizen. This rinky dink People's Court for Muslims only strengthens extremist ideology, and bastardizes an already established system of justice.

Why not just cede a portion of the Island to Muslims? It's certainly heading in that direction.

The big bad U.S. has an M.E. population that has very little interest in upsetting its economic dreams through extremist rants, yet many are able to actually plants seeds for their own Banana Republic in England.

Can countries be given Darwin Awards?

|9.16.08 @ 8:30PM|#

There should only be one system of law that applies to every citizen.

Why? More specifically, isn't the act of say, becoming an expatriate specifically choosing to place yourself under another jurisdiction? Why is it so terrible to voluntarily do so in other circumstances?

There are emotions involved in deciding to leave such a situation.

Oh, well, then we should treat people as children. That settles that.

As for the rest of your post, it's nonresponsive emotional blather.

|9.16.08 @ 8:35PM|#

Banana Republic in England.

Mort's got it right!!!

Except a banana republic would be a blessing compared to another member of the suicide society that defines the Islamic social orders of the recent past.

|9.16.08 @ 8:38PM|#

yes, because it's well within our liberal tradition to brutally suppress voluntary associations that arbitrate disputes.

Who is it that wants to be the banana republic again?

|9.16.08 @ 8:50PM|#

Mr. angry optimist

Oh, well, then we should treat people as children. That settles that.

Only a child could attempt to claim they have a God given right to force women to their will......These fools must be viewed as children. Doing otherwise is as immoral and evil as it gets.

You continue to make arguments that attempt to dismiss the most important distinction in this discussion, Islam doesn't grant it's women the freedom of choice your arguments rely on. I can accept your view in many ways, but you're wrong to think Islam accepts the reason behind them as well. They have openly rejected reason as a value.

|9.16.08 @ 8:54PM|#

yes, because it's well within our liberal tradition to brutally suppress voluntary associations that arbitrate disputes.

How silly..... Disputes voluntarily resolved don't need to be suppressed.

Do you read what you write?

Gloria|9.16.08 @ 9:01PM|#

So do Catholics, Mormons, Hindu or other cultures and religions get to settle internal disputes their own way? Because I bet a lot of Catholics and Mormons would like to prohibit their women from getting abortions or birth control even though it's legal to do so in England.

Famous Mortimer|9.16.08 @ 9:07PM|#

"Why?"

Because it turns what should be a criminal matter into a civil matter, thus taking precedence over established law.

"More specifically, isn't the act of say, becoming an expatriate specifically choosing to place yourself under another jurisdiction?"

Not if you're actively working to usurp the power of that jurisdiction.

"Oh, well, then we should treat people as children. That settles that."

The fact that you think that it has anything to do with treating people like children proves my point. It's acknowledging the complex psychology of the situation, as well as the family dynamic which is the basis of human existence.

You see A.O., on the planet Earth where human beings exist, there also exists within those human beings a biological/social concept called "human psychology" that no matter how hard you try to to trivialize, will never be erased from the human animal.

Turning the concept of free will into nothing more than an algorithm is what Libertarians, and Soviet Communists generally have/had in common.

"As for the rest of your post, it's nonresponsive emotional blather."

At least there's life in here somewhere.

"yes, because it's well within our liberal tradition to brutally suppress voluntary associations that arbitrate disputes."

Do you hear what you are saying? We are discussing assault, and domestic abuse. We're not discussing a business transaction, In the case of "suppression." It's relevant, only if you're talking about not allowing established law to take a backseat to an emotionally manipulative cult ruling.

I don't know where the "brutal" aspect comes, but I'm sure you have some kind of paranoid, "statist" equivocation in your Libertarian tool belt somewhere.

Hyperbole, and terrible analogies consistently go hand in hand around here.

Famous Mortimer|9.16.08 @ 9:10PM|#

Sorry Kilthooney. I just reread your reply, and misinterpreted it as a sarcastic attack that is typical around here.

Please disregard.

|9.16.08 @ 9:20PM|#

How silly..... Disputes voluntarily resolved don't need to be suppressed.

Then if two people voluntarily choose to have their dispute arbitrated elsewhere, what's your malfunction?

Mortimer -

It's acknowledging the complex psychology of the situation

So you acknowledge that the situation is emotionally "complex" and you want to apply a ham-fisted, one-way law in favor of the dynamic you *think* exists?

"Complexity" cuts both ways. You may *want* to rip people out of their silly faiths and beliefs, but they need to stand up as *adults* and extract themselves from the poison of Islam.

If the situation is "complex", isn't it best to leave the individuals who understand the nuances and complexity to make decision for themselves within that context?

you think you're close enough to the situation that you should be able to dictate policy via force.

|9.16.08 @ 9:26PM|#

Thanks Mort.
I've never had a sarcastic comment taken in the proper context for me and I've concluded they only work face to face.

Moral absolutes exist. I think we agree about that.

|9.16.08 @ 9:35PM|#

slam doesn't grant it's women the freedom of choice your arguments rely on.

All Islam? some Islam? some Islamic societies? Some enclaves of Islam?

And what do we mean by "doesn't grant"? you mean that this British enclave will physically force their women into Sharia courts? Or will they just use their influence (which I will concede is generally overwhelming) to convince the women to settle in these courts?

As for DV and assault, I agree with everyone else: these are matters for the Crown's Criminal Courts and should not be delegated.

|9.16.08 @ 9:41PM|#

Mr. A. Optimist

Then if two people voluntarily choose to have their dispute arbitrated elsewhere, what's your malfunction?

If two people choose to resolve their dispute voluntarily, there is no dispute that involves the rule of law.
The "where" this happens is irrelevant to the rule of law but the concept of "voluntary" is very much what it's designed to protect. This is where your argument falls apart. How are voluntary actions protected without solid commitment to the individuals ability to act on their own volition?

Gloria|9.16.08 @ 9:42PM|#

"As for DV and assault, I agree with everyone else: these are matters for the Crown's Criminal Courts and should not be delegated."

I almost always agree with your comments, TAO, so please don't see this as an attack from someone who simply looks to disagree with you. But what the heck do you think some Muslims want to do to their women who want to act outside the religion?

Give them a time-out in the corner?

It's not like they would ask the women to allow them to settle it internally. They'd just start lighting the matches or throwing rocks, because England said they can do it their own way.

|9.16.08 @ 9:47PM|#

Gloria - I'm not seeing anything in there that permits murder. Presumably (much like the Jewish Courts) England has permitted an alternative arbitration system to exist. Now, if there were rock-throwing or match-lighting or some other such craziness, I'd presume that England would still prosecute those as crimes.

As I said, I disagree with the delegation of assault and DV to these courts. My point, though, is that people should have the right to decide where they want to settle disputes, regardless of how odious it seems to us.

Of course, the point you seem to be making is that this is going to encourage Islamic intimidation. That may be true in the aggregate, but if we're going to treat people as individuals, we have to treat them that way and punish them individually for those crimes if and when they occur.

killthooey - you'll have to restate your point. I cannot make heads or tails of it.

|9.16.08 @ 9:48PM|#

How are voluntary actions protected without solid commitment to the individuals ability to act on their own volition?

Why are you assuming that entry into these courts is *NOT* of these women's own respective volitions?

|9.16.08 @ 9:54PM|#

And what do we mean by "doesn't grant"? you mean that this British enclave will physically force their women into Sharia courts? Or will they just use their influence (which I will concede is generally overwhelming) to convince the women to settle in these courts?

Events sometimes obscure the ideas behind an issue. The idea expressed above is an attempt at moral equivocation that doesn't fly. A is A, a thing can't be what it is and what it isn't at the same time. Women are not free under Islam, fact. Equivocate this any way you like but that doesn't change the reality of reality.

|9.16.08 @ 10:00PM|#

Women are not free under Islam, fact.

So, in all 250 million homes that observe the Islamic faith, none of the women are free?

None of them? Anywhere?

And I've never had "A is A" thrown against me like that! How fun!

|9.16.08 @ 10:04PM|#

Why are you assuming that entry into these courts is *NOT* of these women's own respective volition?

What makes you think there's any chance they would ?????

Please tell me, what makes you think women have a fair chance at acting of their own volition when it's been denied them their whole life.... except when they come in contact with the west that is. These courts are designed to counter that influence and you know it. Stop pretending another reality exists, it doesn't.

|9.16.08 @ 10:06PM|#

vo·li·tion (və-lĭsh'ən) pronunciation
n.

1. The act or an instance of making a conscious choice or decision.
2. A conscious choice or decision.
3. The power or faculty of choosing; the will.

Like I said, absent guns to the head or sticks to the back or whatever actual, physical forces that I think are terrible and illegal and should be swiftly and brutally punished, these women *are* entering these courts of their own *volition*. I grant that they may do it under great emotional or situational pressure, but that's still their choice.

What about that is so hard for you?

Gloria Steinem|9.16.08 @ 10:20PM|#

"I grant that they may do it under great emotional or situational pressure, but that's still their choice."

Pro-pressure men are the only kind that get me wet. Now whe's my snorkle?

|9.16.08 @ 10:20PM|#

So, in all 250 million homes that observe the Islamic faith, none of the women are free?

I can't speak for the 125 million women in those homes and neither can you. That's the point. Their freedom is a matter of their choice. The rule of law is intended to insure an individuals choice is truly an individual one. It doesn't prevent free association, it insures it.

Gloria Steinem|9.16.08 @ 10:21PM|#

whe's = where's (hard to think with a fully erect clit).

Gloria Steinem |9.16.08 @ 10:24PM|#

"What about that is so hard for you?"

My clit. Aren't you listening? Because for me, not listening is a clit limper.

|9.16.08 @ 10:25PM|#

It doesn't prevent free association, it insures it.

Yes, and you're continually assuming, without evidence, that this isn't a freely-chosen association.

|9.16.08 @ 10:26PM|#

Pro-pressure men are the only kind that get me wet. Now whe's my snorkle?

Wow sexism never sounded so cool. I'm impressed.

Gloria Steinem |9.16.08 @ 10:35PM|#

Wow sexism never sounded so cool. I'm impressed.

No you're not. You're drowning here.

|9.16.08 @ 10:49PM|#

Yes, and you're continually assuming, without evidence, that this isn't a freely-chosen association.

I have all the evidence needed to conclude it's highly unlikely the volition of women is respected under the Islamic faith. You would do you cause much if you could prove the women of Islam have such freedom and not just continue to assert I can't prove they don't.

The rule of law is designed to promote the freedom FROM ignorance, not just free associations that can be required by mystics.

|9.16.08 @ 10:50PM|#

No you're not. You're drowning here.

You lost me.

|9.16.08 @ 10:57PM|#

You would do you[r] cause much [good] if you could prove the women of Islam have such freedom and not just continue to assert I can't prove they don't.

It is a bad idea, both in public policy and morally-speaking, to presume that a person is an idiot and unable to consent based on their culture.

It is wiser to put the onus on you to prove that the individual in question does NOT have free will or choice. Adults should be presumed to have such until proven otherwise.

West\'s Law|9.16.08 @ 11:09PM|#

"It is wiser to put the onus on you to prove that the individual in question does NOT have free will or choice. Adults should be presumed to have such until proven otherwise."

So much for reasonable doubt. I hope you never sit on a jury.

|9.16.08 @ 11:17PM|#

It is wiser to put the onus on you to prove that the individual in question does NOT have free will or choice. Adults should be presumed to have such until proven otherwise.

Islam preaches men can subjugate the will of women to theirs. What more proof do you need. The believe that Islamic men have such power is not the conclusion one can attribute to an adult person in western societies. Childish perspectives should be treated as such, and not given the respect of adult decisions.

|9.16.08 @ 11:25PM|#

It is wiser to put the onus on you to prove that the individual in question does NOT have free will or choice. Adults should be presumed to have such until proven otherwise.

I suppose you would claim I have the onus to prove an adult slave doesn't want to be a slave also. you're a fool.

|9.16.08 @ 11:25PM|#

So much for reasonable doubt. I hope you never sit on a jury.

Huh? When dealing with defendants in criminal cases, the onus is on the defense to prove that the defendant did not have the requisite mens rea to commit the crime.

That's the standard there, Cholly.

|9.16.08 @ 11:28PM|#

I suppose you would claim I have the onus to prove an adult slave doesn't want to be a slave also.

slave (slāv)
n.1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household

So the concept of slave encapsulates the lack of choice.

Not so with "Islamic woman". Just because she's a member of a faith doesn't mean she's a slave.

False analogy and stealing the concept never win you arguments.

|9.16.08 @ 11:37PM|#

So the concept of slave encapsulates the lack of choice.

Of course. are you clamming it doesn't. Slaves choose to be slaves??????

you've had to much to drink tonight.

|9.16.08 @ 11:40PM|#

Just because she's a member of a faith doesn't mean she's a slave.

In the Islamic faith it does.

|9.16.08 @ 11:46PM|#

Of course. are you clamming it doesn't.

Um, no. I'm pointing out that the concept of "slave" is, by definition, a person who is the property of another. If a person is legally considered the property of another and bound to them, then there is no choice.

Therefore, it is a false analogy to claim that "Islamic women = slaves". It is true by definition that slaves have no choice (unless you're into Slave/Master sex games or whatnot) whereas it is NOT true by definition that "Islamic women" have no choice.

How do I know that? because there's no way you can possibly speak for all Islamic women. If I prove that one woman in the class of "Islamic women" have free choice, then you lose this argument.

|9.16.08 @ 11:53PM|#

How do I know that? because there's no way you can possibly speak for all Islamic women. If I prove that one woman in the class of "Islamic women" have free choice, then you lose this argument.


OK. prove it.

|9.16.08 @ 11:58PM|#

what's your definition of free choice? do you require a subjective definition wherein I have to prove the inner workings of her mind (something I cannot do), or would objective manifestations of the fact that she has free will be enough for you?

|9.16.08 @ 11:59PM|#

Regardless, when stripping away the right to choose, the onus (again and for the final time) is on the right-taker to prove that he's warranted in depriving said individual of his or her liberty.

And, like it or not, saying "She's in Islam! She cannot be free" is not adequate proof.

|9.17.08 @ 12:00AM|#

and for Galt's sake, save your name in the "Remember me" box so you stop misspelling "Toohey".

West\'s Law|9.17.08 @ 12:07AM|#

"It is wiser to put the onus on you to prove that the individual in question does NOT have free will or choice."

No, it's not wiser. I have no need for onuses.

"Adults should be presumed to have such until proven otherwise."

No, clearly there's reasonable doubt.

West\'s Law|9.17.08 @ 12:10AM|#

"and for Galt's sake, save your name in the "Remember me" box so you stop misspelling "Toohey"."

I wonder if Gloria's done with her snorkel. I'll ask.

De Morgan|9.17.08 @ 12:12AM|#

"OK. prove it."

We're waiting...

|9.17.08 @ 12:15AM|#

No, clearly there's reasonable doubt.

If you think it's reasonable to doubt that an individual's faith means they have no free will, then you have a skewed definition of "reasonable".

|9.17.08 @ 12:17AM|#

I've already asked what the standard of evidence is here, De Morgan.

De Morgan|9.17.08 @ 12:19AM|#

"I've already asked what the standard of evidence is here, De Morgan."

But have you read my theorums? I think not.

DannyK |9.17.08 @ 12:19AM|#

Under sharia law, a thing can be A and Not-A at the same time, if that is the will of Allah .

Where's your logic now, Objectivist monkey-boy?

|9.17.08 @ 12:20AM|#

what's your definition of free choice? do you require a subjective definition wherein I have to prove the inner workings of her mind (something I cannot do), or would objective manifestations of the fact that she has free will be enough for you?

God, or evolution, gave me and the women of Islam free will, it's true. But it's the Men of Islam, not God, that deny this free will to their women. That's fact, that's vile, and claiming Islamic women have such free will is disgusting. You sir are disgusting for trying to persuade others Islam is a normal religion that recognizes free will as you're using that concept. A is A after all. Islam can't be what it is and what it isn't at the same time. This is basic shit, not real involved or extraordinary, logic 101.

Gloria Steinem|9.17.08 @ 12:25AM|#

"If you think it's reasonable to doubt that an individual's faith means they have no free will, then you have a skewed definition of "reasonable"."

Faith??? The centuries-long systematic oppression of women is simply the corollary of a woman's faith??? Faith is just a tool, as are you.

Still beat your spouse and kids?

|9.17.08 @ 12:25AM|#

Whether Islam as an institution or faith recognizes free will is immaterial to this, killtoohey.

Lemme see if I can parse your argument:

1. Islam Does not Recognize Free Will
2. These women are Islamic women
3. Therefore these women do not have free will

Of course, you're assuming that these women (and those around them) have A) fully internalized and become Islamic-drones instead of people and B) that faith has such an overwhelming effect on people that they could not possibly choose against it.

Both of these, as applied to 1.1 billion people, are extremely doubtful to the point of practical impossibility.

De Morgan|9.17.08 @ 12:27AM|#

But have you read my theorums? I think not.

And I've never read a spelling book! ;-)

Snorkel Sale 50% off!|9.17.08 @ 12:29AM|#

""OK. prove it."

We're waiting..."

Waiting some more...

|9.17.08 @ 12:31AM|#

I'm still waiting for someone to state whether they want the subjective standard of evidence for free will or the objective standard.

Of course, the reason that this whole point is moot is because I could bring out a female Muslim stripper who has a condo and drinks red wine and somehow, someway, you idiots would find a way to construe that she is either A) not a Muslim or B) still doesn't have free will.

|9.17.08 @ 12:34AM|#

The beginnng of the end of Britain is here.

|9.17.08 @ 12:36AM|#

"If you think it's reasonable to doubt that an individual's faith means they have no free will, then you have a skewed definition of "reasonable"."

I'll admit you might have reason to think I have a skewed view, but it's not my view of what's reasonable, it's in my view of faith.... I have none, it is the same as a wish, or a hope and I've never gotten much of value from wishing and hoping. Jump on that all you want and we still have the problem of Islamic subjugation of the will of women to the will of men to tackle, my view of faith doesn't change that one bit.

Subjective v. Objective|9.17.08 @ 12:37AM|#

"I'm still waiting for someone to state whether they want the subjective standard of evidence for free will or the objective standard."

Two North Koreans walk into an Internet cafe...

Snorkel Sale 95% Off!|9.17.08 @ 12:40AM|#

"If I prove that one woman in the class of "Islamic women" have (sic) free choice, then you lose this argument."

Still waiting...

|9.17.08 @ 12:41AM|#

you're going to be waiting a long time unless someone delineates the standard of proof.

Snorkel Sale 99.9% Off!|9.17.08 @ 12:43AM|#

"Of course, the reason that this whole point is moot is because I could bring out a female Muslim stripper who has a condo and drinks red wine and somehow, someway, you idiots would find a way to construe that she is either A) not a Muslim or B) still doesn't have free will."

By all means, bring her out...

Gloria Steinem|9.17.08 @ 12:44AM|#

"By all means, bring her out..."

Checkmate

|9.17.08 @ 12:49AM|#

Of course, the reason that this whole point is moot is because I could bring out a female Muslim stripper who has a condo and drinks red wine and somehow, someway, you idiots would find a way to construe that she is either A) not a Muslim or B) still doesn't have free will.

Could you bring out a Muslim man that supports her as well???? I know you could find plenty willing to kill her for the honor of Allah. Will you always be there to protect her mister "free will is found in Islam"???

I never claimed she had no free will, I just pointed the price she has to pay for expressing it, you just continue to assert she has it and that's good enough for you. I'm glad you weren't a founding father of this country.

|9.17.08 @ 1:02AM|#

The beginning of the end of Britain is here.

I agree, but a strong case can be made that it started with their loss of personal fire arms. Either way, they're doomed.

|9.17.08 @ 1:11AM|#

my whole argument is that these voluntary associations of arbitration shouldn't be outlawed.

killtoohey is arguing they should because women who are members of Islam couldn't POSSIBLY be volunteering to enter into these associations because...the women are Muslims?

How does that make sense to you?

|9.17.08 @ 1:39AM|#

killtoohey is arguing they should because women who are members of Islam couldn't POSSIBLY be volunteering to enter into these associations because...the women are Muslims?

Yea that's right, I'm the one who doesn't value Muslim women...that's rich. How can you make such ridicules assertions? Don't you think other will see through such flimsy claims?
Anyway.
Rational, secular, western culture and the rule of law would be meaningless if it accepted the notion that the morality of it's precepts were just POSSIBLE. They endure because they're absolutes. An individual in western culture isn't just protected from the POSSIBILITY of slavery in the name of volunteering, they're protected from slavery by the very ideology that exists here. It's ideology vs. theology and ideology we hold will, and should prevail.

You seem to think that a stripper pimped out by her Islamic master is a representation of the western, rational ideal of free will. You are a fool, a classic fool, a fool the idiots of Islam love to find in the countries they have their eyes on.....

What value do you find in defending their evil theology. I can't for the life of me understand why you choose to defend the indefensible.

|9.17.08 @ 1:52AM|#

Killtoohey,

If I understand your argument correctly... You believe that, in order for a woman to be free, the state must dictate to her what institutions she may or may not voluntarily participate in. Is that about right?

In other words, you believe in forcing the state's moral judgment upon others and essentially subjecting them to the will of the state while outlawing their free choices made of their own free will.

Your argument is so laughable and self-contradictory on its face that I would think you were a troll. But you seem so serious about it.

Incidentally, were Tansu Çiller and Benazir Bhutto slaves?

|9.17.08 @ 1:54AM|#

I realize it may be poor taste to inject facts into the proceedings, but QTFA...

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.

The horror. The horror.

|9.17.08 @ 2:11AM|#

In other words, you believe in forcing the state's moral judgment upon others and essentially subjecting them to the will of the state while outlawing their free choices made of their own free will.

If the state's moral authority is derived from and serves the rights of the individual the answer is yes, it has that power morally and legally. If the will of the state enforces the will of the individual, it's morally obligated to do so, the state has no obligation to enforce the delusions of mystics.

In a rational world anyway. What kind of world do you want to leave to your children??????

|9.17.08 @ 2:14AM|#

Let me redirect this by asking, what is the purpose of the rule of law to begin with ? Moral rule of law is predicated on the defense of the individual, not the cultural or religious groups within the society.

Exactly. And part of the state's defending the individual is the state's defending the individual's freedom of association, freedom of contract, and even the institutions the individual chooses to arbitrate disputes within his associations and contracts.

|9.17.08 @ 2:15AM|#

If you do not defend the rights of the individual to associate with those you have a problem with, you are not defending the rights of the individual.

Famous Mortimer|9.17.08 @ 2:24AM|#

"Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance."
The horror. The horror."

Yeah, after they've all calmed down, and the bruises and emotional scars have healed, then things can get back to normal. I can certainly see the advantage for the abuser.

Assault? Nah, that's another "statist" concoction. What these couples need is counseling.

Killtoohey, they don't give a shit what they leave behind in the wake of their social experiment, as long as their taxes are erased.

Famous Mortimer|9.17.08 @ 2:28AM|#

"If you do not defend the rights of the individual to associate with those you have a problem with, you are not defending the rights of the individual."

It's not about defending the right to associate with a group. It's about not allowing a play court to take precedent over criminal matters.

How fucking many times does it need to be repeated?

Jesus, is this what we would have to look forward to under a strict Libertarian government? No wonder so few take this Dungeons & Dragons discourse seriously. It's often removed from the reality of the most basic human concerns.

|9.17.08 @ 2:35AM|#

And part of the state's defending the individual is the state's defending the individual's freedom of association, freedom of contract, and even the institutions the individual chooses to arbitrate disputes within his associations and contracts.

We're not talking about freedom of association, we're talking about freedom from oppression, you seem to claim it doesn't exist and that's the hight of ignorance. But you'll never know the associations, contracts, and institutions denied to the women of Islam by Islam, so the evidence you seek will never materialize, You can live with that, I can't.

Protect Islam if you want, but don't complain when your individual rights are subjugated to the will of other who claim it's just a free association between consenting adults.

|9.17.08 @ 2:42AM|#

It's not about defending the right to associate with a group. It's about not allowing a play court to take precedent over criminal matters.

How fucking many times does it need to be repeated?

Since the issue at hand is specifically about civil matters, not criminal ones, and since everyone and his dog on this thread has made it clear that domestic violence is a criminal matter, and since even the piece of article I quoted had the domestic violence cases under police investigation so a simple word from the women would have landed them in criminal court, you probably need to repeat your misconception a few more times.

2 Bobs Sharia Marriage Consult|9.17.08 @ 2:45AM|#

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment. In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

Bob1: "Well, it looks like due to stress at work and being in a new culture, Hakeem kept on losing his temper and was charged with domestic violence."

Bob2: "So we went ahead and fixed the situation"

QE2:"So you got Hakeem to stop beating his wife?"

Bob1: "Wait just a second your majesty. We, uh, we *fixed* the situation. His wife withdrew the complaint and the police stopped the investigation."

Bob2: "We always like to avoid confrontation, whenever possible. Problem is solved from your end."

|9.17.08 @ 2:47AM|#

We're not talking about freedom of association, we're talking about freedom from oppression

I'm talking about freedom of oppression from the state.

But you'll never know the associations, contracts, and institutions denied to the women of Islam by Islam, so the evidence you seek will never materialize

Now, about Tansu Çiller and Benazir Bhutto...

|9.17.08 @ 2:56AM|#

Bob1: "Wait just a second your majesty. We, uh, we *fixed* the situation. His wife withdrew the complaint and the police stopped the investigation."

Bob2: "We always like to avoid confrontation, whenever possible. Problem is solved from your end."

Why do you believe that having state-recognized voluntary Sharia civil courts will somehow make this scenario more likely than not having them?

Since the family is at least as able to coerce the woman to withdraw her police complaint without the court as with the court, behaving as though the court caused this situation is a complete non sequitur.

Indeed, by taking the matter to the Sharia court while still reserving the power to bring the matter to the state criminal court, there are more paths and therefore more opportunity for domestic violence to be resolved rather than less.

|9.17.08 @ 3:08AM|#

It's not about defending the right to associate with a group. It's about not allowing a play court to take precedent over criminal matters

MikeP is correct.

The rational concepts that form the bases of this country aren't a tool to be used against us like Islam would have you believe, rational thinking is much more dynamic then that...... nice try Islamic appeasers but you'll never get Americans to bend to your evil bullshit. America will defend itself against the irrational, even if it means getting completely irrational on their asses and sending them all to meet Allah.

Least we part with any misunderstanding, let me make this clear to any who might still be confused, I hate Islam, all people who follow Islam deserve what they get. But what they don't get, by the very life i live, is any claim that we Americans have a moral or rational obligation to make room for their mystic delusions. If that's the case I say Death to ISLAM, DEATH TO ISLAM, DEATH TO ISLAM.

Paul|9.17.08 @ 4:02AM|#

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

So whip across the water to, I dunno, Washington State. The Muslim gets the po-po off his back, but if I crack the old lady across the mouth over the meat loaf dispute, the police don't drop their investigation, and an automatic prosecution goes forward even if my wife withdraws the complaint. This isn't a major problem why?

Again, folks. Civil matters are one thing, but if one group of people get a pass on DV cases because purely based on which invisible guy in the sky they believe in, but others don't, we have an 'equal protection' problem.

It's all about enforcement. Who cares if there's a parallel legal system for civil* contracts-- but still, who enforces its outcome? The rubber meets the road on enforcement of the judgements. Over my dead body do I think it's a good idea that one group goes to jail for the same offense another group gets a pass on.

*Sorry folks, domestic violence isn't a civil dispute, it's a criminal matter. So that further ups the ante.

The Recording Angel|9.17.08 @ 4:37AM|#

Jesus, is this what we would have to look forward to under a strict Libertarian government?

Yes, indeed. Libertarianism will freedom-and-equal us all the way to the gulag. Or worse.

The Recording Angel|9.17.08 @ 4:48AM|#

If you do not defend the rights of the individual to associate with those you have a problem with, you are not defending the rights of the individual.

You are correct. I'm defending the society and institutions that make any individual rights possible at all. When an individual or group of individuals initiates a course of action that jeopardizes the integrity of that society and those institutions, then I have no problem with preempting those individual rights. In absence of institutions capable of defending those individual rights, then individual rights have no meaning at all, your sophomoric assertions that individual rights are black and white absolutes notwithstanding.

wistful libertarian theologica|9.17.08 @ 6:30AM|#

If only the Q'ranic passage about "safe words" hadn't been excised!

Fluffy|9.17.08 @ 9:06AM|#

Famous Mortimer and killtoohey, your arguments in this case aren't just misguided, they're evil.

They rely on two of the most pernicious concepts in the arsenal of leftists: the concept of "false consciousness" [that a person can "think" they want to do something they don't "really" want to do] and the belief that someone can be "coerced" by the private non-violent actions of another.

Let's just discard the first one out of hand, shall we? If someone believes they want to do something, then they want it. There are no other factors to consider. Anyone who says otherwise is a presumptuous, dictatorial piece of crap. You don't get to say that the conscious statement of another that they want to resolve their dispute in this way isn't "real". Any attempt by you to do so should be met with a great big "Go Fuck Yourself".

Second, the "emotional dynamic" Mortimer wants to talk about doesn't mean a god-damned thing, unless you are asserting that you should have the power to force people into private associations in order to make sure that someone doesn't feel bad. If a Muslim woman decides that she wants to take part in this sort of arbitration because, if she doesn't, her family will ostracize her or her community will ostracize her, that's a valid part of her decision-making process. You don't get to tell individual Muslims who they have to associate with, and who they can't ostracize. You can't make them continue to associate with an individual Muslim woman, any more than you can reach down from your throne and force me to associate with them. Each individual gets to make those decisions on their own, and if you try to use the power of the state to override those decisions, you are evil. Period.

BTW, several people in this thread asked why the "real" courts have to backstop these decisions, if they're voluntary. Well, that's a common feature of private arbitration. It's to prevent people from going to arbitration, and then simply ignoring the outcome if they don't like it, and trying to replay the dispute in "real" court. Submitting to the arbitration process has to mean you're submitting to the arbitrator's decision, or it's pointless to have it at all. This is something that would not make most people here even raise an eyebrow, if we were talking about a secular arbitrator. It's the identity of the arbitrator that you object to, and since you're not a party to the disputes in question, your objections amount to empty religious hatred.

Fluffy|9.17.08 @ 9:12AM|#

Assault? Nah, that's another "statist" concoction. What these couples need is counseling.

This is somewhat off the main track of the thread, but:

Actually, in response to this specific question, I would say that in cases where no one wants to press charges no assault actually took place.

The modern way that domestic violence cases are prosecuted demeans me as a citizen, by asserting that I am not competent to state when a crime has been committed against me. Until I call it assault, it ain't assault. If I claim that prerogative for myself, it would be sexist [and more false-consciousness crap, to boot] for me to say that women can't do the same.

jtuf|9.17.08 @ 9:39AM|#

I agree with the GW Patriot post. The government's only concern should be making sure no one was forced into the Sharia system. Given the challenges of the plead bargaining system, I'm concerned about this posibility in any arbitration. Educating the general public about their trail rights will help victims withstand coercion.

Mark|9.17.08 @ 9:41AM|#

"Incidentally, were Tansu Çiller and Benazir Bhutto slaves?" The latter was a slave to her ego.

Raphael|9.17.08 @ 10:01AM|#

Would someone please explain why it should be ok for one religious group to not have to follow the law of the land they are choosing to live in, but everyone else does?

What if that religious group says it's ok within their culture to do something really heinous like...eating people...or having sex with five year olds...or killing girls because they don't want to be religious???

Do you think that culture would actually let people "choose" to have the dispute settled in regular court?

That's just bullshit, and some of you are seriously naive.

Just Plain Brian|9.17.08 @ 10:33AM|#

Would someone please explain why it should be ok for one religious group...

From the same article:

"Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act."

So that makes two religious groups.

Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about either one - do you object to the Jewish courts, too, or just the Sharia ones?

...to not have to follow the law of the land they are choosing to live in, but everyone else does?

Also from the article:

"...with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases"

According to the information, this would not apply to criminal matters, so they would still have to follow the law of the land, and not, for example, kill people (unless Britain decriminalizes murder)

Do you think that culture would actually let people "choose" to have the dispute settled in regular court?

That's a good question.

Couldn't we also say the same thing about an abused wife from a different faith? Suppose there's a Christian woman who is clearly being beaten by her Christian husband. If she won't voluntarily leave him, should she be forced to leave him for her own good, or do we have to allow her to continue to make the poor and self-destructive decision to continue living with her abuser?

alan|9.17.08 @ 11:32AM|#

Neu Mejican | September 16, 2008, 4:08pm | #
My 2 cents:

1)Arbitration is always a good alternative to the courts in civil matters...as long as both parties agree.

2) Domestic violence cases should not be considered civil matters. As mentioned above they are a criminal matter.

Ditto. I will only add, that arbitration courts along the line of Sharia law would probably work fine in Muslim communities in Michigan, but because England has lost sight of its cultural moorings, it is likely to ultimately be disastrous there when the jurist in these courts gain legitimacy and affect criminal jurisprudence.

Fluffy|9.17.08 @ 12:58PM|#

Would someone please explain why it should be ok for one religious group to not have to follow the law of the land they are choosing to live in, but everyone else does?

Look, for about the 100th time in this thread:

In the United States litigants can ALREADY choose to go to arbitration instead of civil court.

They can also choose whatever arbitrator they want.

So what Britain is doing here is relatively trivial relative to the arbitration system we already have.

Are you willing to state that you think that allowing litigants to choose to go to arbitration is wrong in all cases?

Because unless you're willing to say that, your point has absolutely no merit.

If you're not willing to say that, your point is revealed to be, "I have no problem with arbitration, I just don't like Muslim arbitration," and that point makes you just another LGF bigot.

|9.17.08 @ 2:04PM|#

If we really wanted to get past the idea of territorial monopolist government, everyone should be able to choose which government they live under, regardless of where they live, sort of like we choose a bank, an insurance company, or a credit card.

Disputes within a non-territorial government would be settled by that government. Disputes between citizens of various non-territorial governments would be settled in the jurisdiction of the victim. No victim, no crime, unless you've signed up to belong to a government that punishes victimless "crimes".

Imagine election season actually meaning something, and your vote actually counting -- every year or two you would get to vote for which government to belong to. Republicans would get the Republican president, Democrats would get the Democrat, and Libertarians would get some degree of freedom.

This idea won't appeal to libertarian centralizers who want a strong national government to protect everyone's freedom (even while that government takes 40% of everyone's money and forces disputes against it into its own court system.)

economist|9.17.08 @ 5:47PM|#

Craig,
I guess you're a bit of an anarchist, then?

Christopher|9.22.08 @ 1:45AM|#

To those that are defending these courts. This is a long term plan by UK Muslims to impose Sharia on the UK. Once Muslims feel they have enough Sharia courts and power they will then declare the UK an Islamic state. As Sharia is for all and does not allow other laws to exist. Pandora's Box has been opened.

Also Islamic women will obviously be bullied into this and the courts have started with criminal cases. This also encourages Muslims to push for this worldwide. Think past the day that you are in.

For more on the issue.

Tancredo Proposes Anti-Sharia Bill
http://islaminaction08.blogspot.com/2008/09/tancredo-proposes-anti-sharia-bill.html

Christopher|9.22.08 @ 1:48AM|#

Craig said,
If we really wanted to get past the idea of territorial monopolist government, everyone should be able to choose which government they live under, regardless of where they live, sort of like we choose a bank, an insurance company, or a credit card.



According to Muslims Sharia is a for all, and no other laws can exist in an Islamic state. Full Sharia and other laws CANNOT exist in one state.
Thankfully you do not make the the decisions here....