Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by L i b)
    I think the latter is far more important, as it happens. Being able to settle disputes out of court by asking someone else to take an opinion on a matter is fundamental to the freedom to contract with others. Indeed, I'd like to see how a country could actively prevent these tribunals from operating without entirely perverting that basic liberty.
    Unless I am mistaken, whatever the tribunal calls itself, it mustn't contradict British law. How is that encourage "liberal principles" anymore than going to the 'real' courts?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    If my sister and I have a dispute that needs resolving, we don't start taking each other to court, our parents arbitrate the dispute. If two school students are arguing over something, they don't take each other to court, but a teacher might step in and settle the issue.

    Similary if two Muslims have some kind of dispute, I don't see why it's such a problem to go to one of these Sharia tribunals rather than immediately running to the courts.

    If people are able to resolve their disputes amongst themselves, why bother getting the state involved?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I don't quite understand why their judgements may be applicable in UK courts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Installation)
    I don't quite understand why their judgements may be applicable in UK courts.
    they hardly condem anyone to stoning (quick search so maybe some extremist tribunels) the judgements passed must be within british law and can be overuled by proper courts
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I wholeheartedly support it, just as people are passive to all the Jewish courts operating here, people should react likewise.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I completely fail to understand what is wrong with people being able to choose to have civil cases dealt with under sharia law where both parties approve.

    I believe fundamentally you can choose more or less any law to base civil cases on in the UK and have been able to since its inception.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Playboy King)
    Well they obviously exist because they're needed. If a muslim living in Britain wants a case to be dealt with under sharia law then it's only logical for them to go to a sharia court. For the muslims (presumably the majority) who'd rather have it done under British law go through the normal courts.

    This is Britain, the sharia courts may be considered harsh but it's a free country they can't force muslims to deal their cases there if they don't want to. The muslims who do want it obviously go to the courts themselves because they require sharia ruling like they may have done in their own countries. There are problems though as highlighted by the article, but imagine if sharia courts were banned...there'd be outrage!
    This is Britain, it is a free country but is not exempt from British Law.
    Sharia law obviously infringes British law, and they are evidently not compatible.

    As opposed to outrage that "British citizens" are not required to follow British Law?

    IMO this is just one more very subtle step to an Islamic state.
    These courts will continue to grow in number, until they are in a position to challenge.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Setting up arbitration tribunals is perfectly within British law, and indeed not only assists the judicial system but would - if prevented from operating - be a complete affront to the liberal principles of this country.

    If you don't like it, maybe you should go elsewhere.



    Unless by 'secularise' you mean something akin to culling all religious people, then it wouldn't make any difference. Arbitration tribunals are not part of the state, they are private organisations which function by agreement between parties.
    Just because the law exists does not make it liberal, I don't think sharia courts were envisaged when the arbitration legislation was thought up; and such legislation can be changed. I don't think arbitration is a liberal principle, its just a way of the state saving money.

    All these mediation and arbitration activities in a family context are a bad idea, even if they are secular, it always relies on someone who isn't a judge deciding what they think ought to happen and then pressuring whoever gets the raw end to agree. If people want to settle out of court they should just agree on something or get their lawyers to hammer out an agreement, because at least their lawyer ought to be on their side. I think that even outside of attempts to apply misogynistic legal codes to arbitration the whole process is often highly prejudicial towards women, and therefore profoundly illiberal in the true sense of the word.

    I think its fine in a corporate context for people to have binding or non binding arbitration, the interests of a company are not generally bound up in gender values and complicated emotional and personal matters or the best interests of children. Arbitration should not be for individual family matters.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yuppie20)
    This is Britain, it is a free country but is not exempt from British Law.
    Sharia law obviously infringes British law, and they are evidently not compatible.

    As opposed to outrage that "British citizens" are not required to follow British Law?

    IMO this is just one more very subtle step to an Islamic state.
    These courts will continue to grow in number, until they are in a position to challenge.
    Right so the 2 million Muslims with their 85 sharia courts will force the rest of the 58 million non Muslims into an Islamic state :rolleyes:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yuppie20)
    This is Britain, it is a free country but is not exempt from British Law.
    Sharia law obviously infringes British law, and they are evidently not compatible.

    As opposed to outrage that "British citizens" are not required to follow British Law?

    IMO this is just one more very subtle step to an Islamic state.
    These courts will continue to grow in number, until they are in a position to challenge.
    You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Unless I am mistaken, whatever the tribunal calls itself, it mustn't contradict British law. How is that encourage "liberal principles" anymore than going to the 'real' courts?
    It is a fundamental principle of liberalism to be able to contract and resolve disputes by agreement as you see fit.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    I wholeheartedly support it, just as people are passive to all the Jewish courts operating here, people should react likewise.
    We should get rid of the Jewish courts too, but the reason they haven't attracted so much attention is that Jewish women are generally more educated and aware of their legal rights in the UK, and though the principles under which they operate are probably sexist they are not as sexist as those under which most sharia courts operate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    They should be shut down! You can't just start your own court, and law down justice (or their interpretation of it)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    We should get rid of the Jewish courts too, but the reason they haven't attracted so much attention is that Jewish women are generally more educated and aware of their legal rights in the UK, and though the principles under which they operate are probably sexist they are not as sexist as those under which most sharia courts operate.
    Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. But at the risk of getting into a 30 page pointless "debate" with you, I'll allow you to wallow in your fantasies.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    People make a lot of fuss about muslims in the UK wanting to be judged by Islamic law, almost as much as the outrage portrayed when westerners living in/visiting the Arab world are judged according to Islamic Law.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    It is a fundamental principle of liberalism to be able to contract and resolve disputes by agreement as you see fit.
    Not really, otherwise entering into slavery or indentured servitude or drawing up contracts in which one party undertook voluntarily to surrender their sexual independence or freedom of movement would be perfectly fine and liberal.

    In the real world individual contract is mediated by the enforcement of the state and preferably of a single legal system, and a court of that legal system can declare an illiberal contract to be illegal or invalid. With a single legal system the state defines what contracts it is permissible to enter into and what contracts should be upheld in its courts. So if any contract based purely on the criteria that individuals 'saw fit' was found to be prejudicial to their interests or based on illiberal and unjust principles it could be rejected by an English court - and that is the way it should be.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Playboy King)
    Well they obviously exist because they're needed. If a muslim living in Britain wants a case to be dealt with under sharia law then it's only logical for them to go to a sharia court. For the muslims (presumably the majority) who'd rather have it done under British law go through the normal courts.

    This is Britain, the sharia courts may be considered harsh but it's a free country they can't force muslims to deal their cases there if they don't want to. The muslims who do want it obviously go to the courts themselves because they require sharia ruling like they may have done in their own countries. There are problems though as highlighted by the article, but imagine if sharia courts were banned...there'd be outrage!
    I forgot "British citizens" were exempt from British laws
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. But at the risk of getting into a 30 page pointless "debate" with you, I'll allow you to wallow in your fantasies.
    Haha.

    You want to make an empirical argument that Muslim women are as educated and aware of their rights under the English legal system as Jewish women in Britain?

    A significant number Muslim women are recent immigrants, some of whom do not even speak English, and if you look at any empirical data on the average (and full range) of educational qualifications held by women in the British Muslim community what I have said would be obviously accepted as true.

    Or you want to dispute that sharia principles are more sexist than those employed by Jewish courts based on actual judgements in the two systems in Britain and elsewhere? Good luck with that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yuppie20)
    I forgot "British citizens" were exempt from British laws
    Oh did you forget?
    Well they aren't exempt from British law if you'd really like to know :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    .......
    Again, the whole premise of your argument is fallacious and incredibly superficial. It's extremely boring and tiresome to enlighten you otherwise and to be frank it won't make an iota of difference. So again, wallow wallow wallow.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)


    It is a fundamental principle of liberalism to be able to contract and resolve disputes by agreement as you see fit.
    You want to live in an anarchistic state, where laws infringe upon others and their is chaos and great personal suffering. but its alryt, its liberal

    get over your ******* word
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,859

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Will you be tempted to trade up and get out of your firm offer on results day?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.