It's the year 2008.
I just figured I'd go ahead and remind you of that before getting into any detail about a story in today's UK Daily Mail that's garnering quite a bit of attention. Apparently, thanks to a loophole in Britain's legal code -- specifically the 1996 Arbitration Act -- Islamic "sharia courts" are now insisting that their rulings be honored as binding under UK law. Basically what it means is that Muslims living in Britain can have their civil cases heard by religious officials and that the verdicts of those officials will be enforced by the secular British government, just like any other court decision would.
The problem of course -- aside from the very notion of a supposedly enlightened state legal system indulging age old nonsensical superstition, which is obscenely ridiculous at face -value -- is that sharia law is notoriously inequitable toward women. (And if ever there were a blatant understatement, that last sentence was it, considering that we're talking about a system of laws that still condones and perpetuates the brutal practice of honor killing.)
By allowing British sharia courts to decide, say, divorce or domestic violence cases -- which some reportedly already have -- the UK government is undoing hundreds of years of civil rights advancements and granting the unforgivably backward among its population the authority to supercede the very system of laws it holds dear and which should apply across the board to those who call Great Britain home.
At the risk of sounding jingoistic: You live in a country; you abide by its laws. You don't get to bring your own food to the party then demand that your host cooks it for you.
The reason ancient sharia laws are being given a pass, though? Or, ironically, the Jewish Beth Din courts for that matter?
Because civilized nations still see no alternative but to prostrate themselves at the foot of inane religious beliefs.
Now it looks like Britain will be in the unenviable position of having to enforce some of those beliefs.
Here -- now -- in the year 2008.
Monday, September 15, 2008
They Shoot Women, Don't They?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
I just want to clarify that since the Diaspora, Jewish Law requires that we follow the rules of the state in which we live.
That's rather scary isn't it? My hope is that they will find some sort of loophole that will keep them from having to enforce these things. They could always try to reach way back and say that God's law is not above the King (or Queen) and try to slap it down that way. I'm not entirely sure that this idea has not been canceled out by more up to date law -- can't really get to the research material here at work -- but it's an idea.
The thought that any country should have to enforce the religious doctrine from another country is ridiculous. I'm with you on the "not bringing your own food to the party" thing. You've got to abide by what's there, and if you don't like it, if you want Sharia law that badly? Move back to the countries that practice it and stop trying to force your new country to enforce something that is not a part of their system.
Good point, Anon 11:10, but then again, the Bible tells us to submit to our earthly governments and that doesn't stop the more rabid right-wing Christians from trying to reshape laws and legal attitudes around biblical precepts.
There are always some crazies who don't pay attention to God's REAL instructions.
So will they be carrying out the executions of the women during halftime of the Premier League games a la the Taliban?
Dude, this is fucked up.
Holy Shit
If there is one thing I do not have any patience with, it's this "religion as law" nonsense.
I don't know the details of this, but seriously.
You live in the UK, you live by the UK's rules. You don't like it? Then GET THE FUCK OUT.
I'm sorry, I know I'm very intolerant in this area, but damn!
The guy in charge of Australia had it about right when he said, “Everyone is welcome here, but if you don’t like the way we do things you can get the fuck out.”
That is the stupidest thing Britian could have done. I dont know why they are pandering so damn much. It is their country and if the law code isn't appriciated, then dont live there. It's fairly simple.
That said, comming from that general area of the world let me clear some shit up that just annoys me.
1. Shariah is an interpretation of Islamic law. Therefore there is not 1 perfectly set rule. At it's best the law was created fluid because of Arab expansion. To not totally decimate the culture they would invade they'd let them shape Shariah law to their local folklore.
So it's not impossible to conclude that this Shariah would be a much more progressive one. Still a stupid idea but it brings me to point #2:
Ugh. So tiered of being told how opressed my damn woman are. I am an acrobat with the circus. Yes. For reals. My sister is a mathmatician and physicist. The other is a nurse. My sister in law is a stay at home wife. She is the only one in our family who does that.
We are college educated.
Some of use wear headscarfs, some of us do not.
We dont every worry about honor killings from our families.
We arn't sold for camels or sheep.
But yeah. While I agree that this idea is stupid, please realize that the Taliban was CRAZY and not the norm in the area. Nor are beheadings or getting acid thrown in your face. My family, my friends and I have never worried about such sensationalistic bullshit.
In Canada we had a similar appeal for equal authority for Sharia courts - so we shut down the whole faith-based system, tossing Christian and Jewish tribunals just so Sharia wouldn't get the chance to poison our justice system. This, after considerable public outcry demanding it. It's rather telling (so far) that there's no outcry in Britain over this. The notion that those "involved agree to be bound by traditional sharia law" seems at first glance to be an adequate protection but is quite open to abuse and intimidation - abandon your criminal charges or else. There needs to be an assertion of the dominance of secular law or else the UK's going to be headed for a very rough patch.
Anon 2:55 - Good to hear from you. I'm glad your experience is so positive, but I hope you see that Sharia can be taken by extremists and twisted horribly, in spite of it ideally being flexible and adaptable. The wackjobs giving Islam such a bad name abroad claim to adhere to Sharia but use such a strict interpretation that it sends sensible people fleeing (Iran, Saudi Arabia, and even Turkey is under assault despite being secular). I think what drove opposition to Sharia here was that the potential for abuse and the nature of the abuses were so extreme that rather than have Sharia implemented to be potentially hijacked later, it was better not to implement it and level the playing field for everyone under the secular rules.
There is such a thing as accommodation, wherein a host country or government agrees to accept traditions and religious observations, such as holidays not standard to the population at large. Then there is this mess of conferring upon traditional law, outside the legal precepts of the host government, official status. As anonymous a few posts above said, this was standard for a conquering or invading group in hopes of not shattering the extant culture, but we are not talking about a forceful takeover of Britain.
Even the Ostrogoths upheld Roman law and religion.
Chez, how do you pronounce 'fatwa'? I myself am trusting in guns and religion. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA.
It is 2008 and a 7th century desert, tribal superstition continues to vex us?
I'm seriously starting to question my OWN tolerance. Does this mean I'm getting old? Shit.
Oh I totally agree, Aaron. I dont think they should allow Shariah at all. I think it's a rediculous idea and one perpetrated by the extremists in Saudi Arabia.
The extremism of Islam in Saudi, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan is sad and warped. Allthough I dont consider myself a Muslim, I've seen how it can be when not hijacked by nutjobs.
It's just...my experience in an Arab family is not a 'crazy' one. Most of my friends growing up have similar experiences. Are our families a bit more strict. But all in all they are normal parents living normal lives. No threat of death or disownment...etc.
But hey, I just wanted to put that out there so nobody thinks that Shariah in Britian would be anything like the Taliban. Come on. Most of the Arab world thinks that both Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan are batshit crazy.
Anonymous, as much as I get the feeling we'd get along great, and for the most part could easily tolerate each other if not agree on many things, I have one nitpick with your last assertion - Shariah in Britain, Canada, anywhere like that would not be like the Taliban. True at first, no doubt. The Shariah councils/courts would toe the line at first, then get leaned on by powerful families or influential imams, and give more traditional (read: ass-backwards and oppressive) rulings. When confronted by the secular world, they'd point to their legally enshrined rights, claim not to be oppressing but merely recommending that their (misunderstood) cultural norms be obeyed by the complainants. In short it would be a "you don't know what you're talking about, shove off and leave us to our ways" that if respected, would undermine secular legal authority and have people stripped of legal protections against abuses. It would take unheard-of levels of dialogue, cooperation, and transparency to avoid this type of outcome, and yes, it would even be possible. But likely? Colour me cynical, but I think it would be inevitable that those desiring Shariah would eventually show their true colours and try impose Islamic norms and laws by smaller measures.
This is not to say I don't have any respect for Arabs and/or Muslims - those willing to coexist peacefully and equally with other groups and beliefs (including the benefits and detriments of free speech) have my enthusiastic support. Idiots throwing hissy fits and starting riots about cartoons can suck it. And as crazy as the Saudis are, here we've got the Iranian Majlis overwhelmingly approving a law making knowingly converting from Islam a capital offence. The crazy is looking contagious over here, and giving the crazy any hope of cooperation is irresponsible, reckless, dangerous, and stupid.
Despite the fear that I may come off as a blowhard American here, it is my belief that when one enters another nation with the intent to take up permanent residence there, then one should be obligated to recognize, respect and adhere to that nation's laws. Otherwise, don't move there.
Case in point: Traffic laws in America state that a driver must have a photo ID in order to drive. The purpose of a photo ID is so that an officer can clearly recognize the driver of the vehicle. Presumably the two should match. However, if a burka covers the driver's face, then it renders the point of the ID moot.
Now America is (or Constitutionally should be) a secular nation. It doesn't matter that one's religion requires them to wear a burka. If one can't abide by the traffic laws of the nation, then don't drive.
Another case is the situation in Denmark where muslims protested the depiction of Mohamed in a cartoon. Now last I checked it wasn't Denmark wasn't a Muslim state. So where do mustlims get off protesting? By gum, if I want to scribble an anti-Koran message on my school notebook, I'm gonna do it. Unless, of course, my nation's laws forbid it.
But if that were the case I'd move.
i think shariah is unnecessary in a country with a productive and effective court system.
In a place like nigeria, where none of the above exist, shariah is actually (for the most part) an effective and stabilizing system. The orthodox court system there is corrupt and lawyers are few and far between. Shariah is also not oppressive, as it is supposed to be optional.
It certainly has problems, and they are particularly in equitable treatment of women (women have to provide twice the evidence for a burden of proof, i.e. 4 witnesses instead of a man's 2), but it is not the all powerful monster we westerners usually think it to be.
I learned quite a bit about it from a british documentary on the bbc. very interesting.
Aaron,
totally agreed. I think it would come down to a few old bastards with olden ideals on what 'modesty' or 'virtue' mean. You get absolutly no argument from me there.
But it is important to understand the difference between Shariah in say...Syria and Shariah in Afghanistan. It's sorta like comparing religious bents in rural Alabama to that of Seattle.
My qualm is not so much that Shariah be in the legal system. I am adamantly opposed to this. I believe in seperation of church and state. I dont care what 'traditional values' they want to instill as parents. They can do that when the kids are young. It's not the job of the state to pander.
BUT my issue does come in when people start comparing all of the Arab world to Saudi Arabia, Iran or Afghanistan.
Because in Iran or Saudi I could be jailed or at the very least harassed and screamed at for not wearing a hijab (which I've only worn 4 times in my life). In Syria, Lebanon, Jordon, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, or Baharain it would not be an issue.
I only get riled up when we compare the modern Arab state (i.e. Lebanon or Egypt) to that of Saudi Arabia, Iran or Afghanistan.
But hey, religious nutso's ruin it for everybody dont they?
Just remember that even in the Middle East, most Arabs look at these cartoonist radicals and Clerics as the odd ones out. Rather then, in America, we tend to see them as a norm.
This story is horrifying because I can't believe the UK would let its courts lose jurisdiction over criminal matters. In Ontario, the Arbitration Act only ever applied to civil and family matters, and even then, the rulings had to comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guaranteed equality for the sexes. The problem would have been in ensuring that the rulings were fair, which is why the exceptions were removed.
There seems to be a conflation in the article of the Law Lord agreeing that sharia law should be applied to family and financial disputes and then the head tribunal sharia judge saying he expected jurisdiction in criminal matters too. I doubt this would actually happen and it is a bit deceptive in its wording. However, if there is no safeguard in the Arbitration Act for the rulings to comply with existing UK human rights codes, the Parliament needs to get on that.
Damn. I was totally planning on escaping to England one day. Fuck that. I'm going to New Zealand now.
And you are surprised?
I had more to say, but my dog is barking at something outside the door. So I should probably go.
Your seeing more than is currently there. These "courts" are currently binding arbitration by choice of both sides in the dipute. They cant enforce anything beyond civil actions and is mostly for divorces.
Yeah its still shitty but its not what we would think of a court.
Post a Comment