AussiePam;1212634 wrote: Sure there are probably many other little self-appointed secret star chambers laying down the law according to their more or less enlightened worldview. Toss all of them out. I'm for transparency. I support the view that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done, for all, in the light of day.
I'd be astonished if the Beth Din is regarded as a "little self-appointed secret star chamber" by anyone, and the Muslim arbitration courts are no more or less private or unreportable as any others as far as I'm aware. Why do you think they sit in secret or fail to be transparent?
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
spot;1212636 wrote: I'd be astonished if the Beth Din is regarded as a "little self-appointed secret star chamber" by anyone, and the Muslim arbitration courts are no more or less private or unreportable as any others as far as I'm aware. Why do you think they sit in secret or fail to be transparent?
This thread is not about Beth Din.
Why do you think that a group of men sitting in judgment in some mosque is transparent justice?
This thread is not about Beth Din.
Why do you think that a group of men sitting in judgment in some mosque is transparent justice?
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
AussiePam;1212649 wrote: This thread is not about Beth Din.
Why do you think that a group of men sitting in judgment in some mosque is transparent justice?The comparison between Muslim arbitration courts and longer-established religious arbitration courts in England seems entirely relevant to the thread. If you want to know the place of arbitration courts in the English legal process then bringing the Beth Din up as an example is an obvious one. It applies a non-English system of religious law within England under UK legislation in a binding manner, which is exactly what the Muslim equivalent raised by the opening post does too.
What are you using transparent to mean? There are courts in England to which public access is limited, to the records of which limited access applies, on which reporting restrictions are placed, mostly in the civil sphere which these arbitration courts cover. I tried last year to get the transcript of a magistrate court trial and was refused on the grounds that I had no recognised reason to see them, for example. What reason have you for thinking a Muslim arbitration court would be any less "transparent" - and again, I'd like to know the sense you're using the word, since it's you that offered it. Do you mean the process by which they come to a verdict is unknown? That's not true. Do you mean the court may not be open to the public in specified circumstances? That's presumably possible, it's certainly the case in some English courts covering the same legal issues.
Why do you think that a group of men sitting in judgment in some mosque is transparent justice?The comparison between Muslim arbitration courts and longer-established religious arbitration courts in England seems entirely relevant to the thread. If you want to know the place of arbitration courts in the English legal process then bringing the Beth Din up as an example is an obvious one. It applies a non-English system of religious law within England under UK legislation in a binding manner, which is exactly what the Muslim equivalent raised by the opening post does too.
What are you using transparent to mean? There are courts in England to which public access is limited, to the records of which limited access applies, on which reporting restrictions are placed, mostly in the civil sphere which these arbitration courts cover. I tried last year to get the transcript of a magistrate court trial and was refused on the grounds that I had no recognised reason to see them, for example. What reason have you for thinking a Muslim arbitration court would be any less "transparent" - and again, I'd like to know the sense you're using the word, since it's you that offered it. Do you mean the process by which they come to a verdict is unknown? That's not true. Do you mean the court may not be open to the public in specified circumstances? That's presumably possible, it's certainly the case in some English courts covering the same legal issues.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
AussiePam;1212649 wrote: This thread is not about Beth Din.
Why do you think that a group of men sitting in judgment in some mosque is transparent justice? Are there any woman sitting in on Sahria arbitration courts? Not that i have seen. This why they are dangerous even to the muslim women.
Why do you think that a group of men sitting in judgment in some mosque is transparent justice? Are there any woman sitting in on Sahria arbitration courts? Not that i have seen. This why they are dangerous even to the muslim women.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
oscar;1212716 wrote: Are there any woman sitting in on Sahria arbitration courts? Not that i have seen. This why they are dangerous even to the muslim women.
And do you seriously think there are women adjudicating as members of London's Beth Din?[1] It's a cultural matter. It's how that particular culture operates at the moment. The appointment of the first ever woman judge in England is within living memory too. When was the first woman judge elected in the US, for that matter? Why people think every culture has to march through time in lockstep I have no idea.
I'm confident there are interpretations of Islam that are inclusive of women, just as there are interpretations of Christianity that are inclusive of women. That wasn't even remotely true of Christianity when it was first formulated, it got lots worse before it got any better and there are still a majority of denominations which haven't made the grade. What's involved in all these matters is evolution, not abolition.
[1] present membership (2007) of the London Beth Din:
* Av Beth Din - the Chief Rabbi, Dr. Jonathan Sacks
* Rosh Beth Din - Dayan Chanoch Ehrentreu
* Dayan Yonason Abraham
* Dayan M Gelley -senior dayan
* Dayan I Binstock
* Dayan S Simons
* Dayan I Berger (Consultant)
* Rabbi Jeremy Conway -Kashrut Instigator
And do you seriously think there are women adjudicating as members of London's Beth Din?[1] It's a cultural matter. It's how that particular culture operates at the moment. The appointment of the first ever woman judge in England is within living memory too. When was the first woman judge elected in the US, for that matter? Why people think every culture has to march through time in lockstep I have no idea.
I'm confident there are interpretations of Islam that are inclusive of women, just as there are interpretations of Christianity that are inclusive of women. That wasn't even remotely true of Christianity when it was first formulated, it got lots worse before it got any better and there are still a majority of denominations which haven't made the grade. What's involved in all these matters is evolution, not abolition.
[1] present membership (2007) of the London Beth Din:
* Av Beth Din - the Chief Rabbi, Dr. Jonathan Sacks
* Rosh Beth Din - Dayan Chanoch Ehrentreu
* Dayan Yonason Abraham
* Dayan M Gelley -senior dayan
* Dayan I Binstock
* Dayan S Simons
* Dayan I Berger (Consultant)
* Rabbi Jeremy Conway -Kashrut Instigator
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
I object strongly to any preference to cultural sensibilities when when upholding the rule of law. The law of this land should be total and absolute. Any law that revolves around ANY religion as far as I'm concerned is an anathema. The rules and laws which I abide by should be collectively decided by parliament and not have any direction from the scriptures of any religious denomination
I agree wholeheartedly with Aussie Pams interpretation (and her obvious ability to put it better than I can )
I agree wholeheartedly with Aussie Pams interpretation (and her obvious ability to put it better than I can )
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
Snowfire;1212794 wrote: I object strongly to any preference to cultural sensibilities when when upholding the rule of law. The law of this land should be total and absolute. Any law that revolves around ANY religion as far as I'm concerned is an anathema. The rules and laws which I abide by should be collectively decided by parliament and not have any direction from the scriptures of any religious denomination
I agree wholeheartedly with Aussie Pams interpretation (and her obvious ability to put it better than I can )
Then by all means lobby to make all religious courts illegal in the UK. I'd sign up for that but you can bet your britches there'd be some heat from the Jewish communities who fought for the right 140 years ago and got it. I do think you might like to give a rational reason for disbanding what's worked so well for their community all these years, though. It seems a bit bigoted to just destroy it merely through unfounded prejudice. What reason would you offer that might hold water and be persuasive?
One last time, in case anyone's missed the essential - these courts can't pass judgement without the explicit agreement of both parties to the dispute. That means exactly what it says.
I agree wholeheartedly with Aussie Pams interpretation (and her obvious ability to put it better than I can )
Then by all means lobby to make all religious courts illegal in the UK. I'd sign up for that but you can bet your britches there'd be some heat from the Jewish communities who fought for the right 140 years ago and got it. I do think you might like to give a rational reason for disbanding what's worked so well for their community all these years, though. It seems a bit bigoted to just destroy it merely through unfounded prejudice. What reason would you offer that might hold water and be persuasive?
One last time, in case anyone's missed the essential - these courts can't pass judgement without the explicit agreement of both parties to the dispute. That means exactly what it says.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
I dont think I'm being bigoted in the least. I'm not calling for the abolition of religion. I just feel that we should not be looking to the Scriptures for guidance to the passing of laws and the upholding justice.
Why should the Bible or the Quran dictate what is proper conduct and against the law when the State provides all we need through Parliament as to the Law of the Land.
Religion is a personal journey not a course that has been devised for the public to follow. They are seperate or at least should be.
I believe there is no part to play in public life for seperate courts when the Law has already been laid out by Parliament for the benefit of all its citizens
Why should the Bible or the Quran dictate what is proper conduct and against the law when the State provides all we need through Parliament as to the Law of the Land.
Religion is a personal journey not a course that has been devised for the public to follow. They are seperate or at least should be.
I believe there is no part to play in public life for seperate courts when the Law has already been laid out by Parliament for the benefit of all its citizens
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
Snowfire;1212828 wrote: I believe there is no part to play in public life for seperate courts when the Law has already been laid out by Parliament for the benefit of all its citizens
The UK law in question is one which says that two parties may agree to a binding resolution of a dispute if they both agree to do so, and that the UK courts will enforce such decisions. The nature of the adjudication process is left entirely to the disputing parties. That law's already been laid out by Parliament for the benefit of all its citizens. It's primarily a cost-efficiency approach to civil litigation. I think it works rather well, I'm not sure why you don't. What's wrong with it?
The UK law in question is one which says that two parties may agree to a binding resolution of a dispute if they both agree to do so, and that the UK courts will enforce such decisions. The nature of the adjudication process is left entirely to the disputing parties. That law's already been laid out by Parliament for the benefit of all its citizens. It's primarily a cost-efficiency approach to civil litigation. I think it works rather well, I'm not sure why you don't. What's wrong with it?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
Maybe the percieved bigotry you alluded to in my previous post is showing more than I thought. On the face of it, it would appear to be, as you describe it, to be nothing more sinister than arbitration between to consenting parties. I have only suspicions rather than proof, that these arbitrations are, as AP posted, full of male dominated judgements and not as enlightened as we would hope. My main objection would be to what extent Muslims expect these Sharia courts to extend beyond that of arbitration and start to demand the sort of rulings we see in Islamic countries. Unlikely perhaps but it wouldnt stop them demanding it, forcefully even
Just how compatible is the sharia law seen in these countries and law in democratic states such as the UK or the US. Is my fear really unjustified when I see the horrors of the rulings and dogmas of medieval minded Mullahs in the Islamic States. AP did note the extreme penaltes meted out to women. The men folk and particularly the Immams have en extraordinary amount of power, especially over women. To that extent, it makes me feel extremely uncomfortable. With that amount of extreme power, just how much freedom do some of those "consenting parties" have, given the choice. I wonder
There are those that would argue that Sharia law does not allow freedom of speech and that the word of Allah is final. No arguement. Again, is my discomfort unfounded. I'm sure you think it is
Just how compatible is the sharia law seen in these countries and law in democratic states such as the UK or the US. Is my fear really unjustified when I see the horrors of the rulings and dogmas of medieval minded Mullahs in the Islamic States. AP did note the extreme penaltes meted out to women. The men folk and particularly the Immams have en extraordinary amount of power, especially over women. To that extent, it makes me feel extremely uncomfortable. With that amount of extreme power, just how much freedom do some of those "consenting parties" have, given the choice. I wonder
There are those that would argue that Sharia law does not allow freedom of speech and that the word of Allah is final. No arguement. Again, is my discomfort unfounded. I'm sure you think it is
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
I always like Winston Churchill.
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
spot;1212720 wrote: And do you seriously think there are women adjudicating as members of London's Beth Din?[1] It's a cultural matter. It's how that particular culture operates at the moment. The appointment of the first ever woman judge in England is within living memory too. When was the first woman judge elected in the US, for that matter? Why people think every culture has to march through time in lockstep I have no idea.
I'm confident there are interpretations of Islam that are inclusive of women, just as there are interpretations of Christianity that are inclusive of women. That wasn't even remotely true of Christianity when it was first formulated, it got lots worse before it got any better and there are still a majority of denominations which haven't made the grade. What's involved in all these matters is evolution, not abolition.
[1] present membership (2007) of the London Beth Din:
* Av Beth Din - the Chief Rabbi, Dr. Jonathan Sacks
* Rosh Beth Din - Dayan Chanoch Ehrentreu
* Dayan Yonason Abraham
* Dayan M Gelley -senior dayan
* Dayan I Binstock
* Dayan S Simons
* Dayan I Berger (Consultant)
* Rabbi Jeremy Conway -Kashrut Instigator
So the relevant part of the argument now goes:
some interpretations of Islam can be confidently seen as being inclusive of women
other religions etc didn't always treat women well in the past
cultures within a country don't need to be in step with each other but eventually evolve
Conclusion:
Therefore Sharia law courts within Britain are a good thing
or, more fully -
Therefore it is good thing for Britain to go backwards and encourage the proliferation of sharia law courts so medieval minded mullahs behind closed doors can impose their possibly evolving interpretation of their discriminatory religious law upon very probably pressured female British semi-citizens
-------------------------------------
I don't buy it.
BUT
I don't live or vote in the UK, and this is not a pointscoring debate. I'm expressing my opinion in regard to the opening post. Our opinions reflect our personal worldviews - mine is not anti all things western. Also, because I am a woman, I'm less inclined to expect my sisters to wait patiently for the evolving enlightenment of the men who have power over them.
I'm confident there are interpretations of Islam that are inclusive of women, just as there are interpretations of Christianity that are inclusive of women. That wasn't even remotely true of Christianity when it was first formulated, it got lots worse before it got any better and there are still a majority of denominations which haven't made the grade. What's involved in all these matters is evolution, not abolition.
[1] present membership (2007) of the London Beth Din:
* Av Beth Din - the Chief Rabbi, Dr. Jonathan Sacks
* Rosh Beth Din - Dayan Chanoch Ehrentreu
* Dayan Yonason Abraham
* Dayan M Gelley -senior dayan
* Dayan I Binstock
* Dayan S Simons
* Dayan I Berger (Consultant)
* Rabbi Jeremy Conway -Kashrut Instigator
So the relevant part of the argument now goes:
some interpretations of Islam can be confidently seen as being inclusive of women
other religions etc didn't always treat women well in the past
cultures within a country don't need to be in step with each other but eventually evolve
Conclusion:
Therefore Sharia law courts within Britain are a good thing
or, more fully -
Therefore it is good thing for Britain to go backwards and encourage the proliferation of sharia law courts so medieval minded mullahs behind closed doors can impose their possibly evolving interpretation of their discriminatory religious law upon very probably pressured female British semi-citizens
-------------------------------------
I don't buy it.
BUT
I don't live or vote in the UK, and this is not a pointscoring debate. I'm expressing my opinion in regard to the opening post. Our opinions reflect our personal worldviews - mine is not anti all things western. Also, because I am a woman, I'm less inclined to expect my sisters to wait patiently for the evolving enlightenment of the men who have power over them.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
AussiePam;1212904 wrote: Therefore it is good thing for Britain to go backwards and encourage the proliferation of sharia law courts so medieval minded mullahs behind closed doors can impose their possibly evolving interpretation of their discriminatory religious law upon very probably pressured female British semi-citizensWhat puzzles me is the extrapolation to cutting off limbs as punishment, or stoning people to death, as an eventual consequence of the current application of Islamic law in these courts. I can't see any basis for that sort of surmise.
As for "Therefore it is good thing" etc, yes, I think it is. Not all "mullahs" are "medieval minded", I don't see where you get "closed doors" from (do, please, explain that bit) and what on earth is a "semi-citizen"?
As for "Therefore it is good thing" etc, yes, I think it is. Not all "mullahs" are "medieval minded", I don't see where you get "closed doors" from (do, please, explain that bit) and what on earth is a "semi-citizen"?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Britain now has 85 Sharia law courts..
I've always thought it important, in any discussion, to know when to stop. I've said what I want to say in this thread at this time, and I'm off to enjoy a sunny Saturday morning.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"