Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Meanwhile, over in Asia . . . | Main | Lemieux: Election packaging »

Monday, September 15, 2008

Sharia law coming to the UK?

Or has it already arrived?

According to The Times:

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.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

The article discusses a dispute handled by one of these courts. In that case, there was a dispute over an estate that was to be divided between three daughters and two sons. Under conventional British law, the daughters would have gotten an equal share of the inheritance.

Under the new sharia system, the sons received twice as much as the daughters.

Apparently, both parties to a dispute still have to agree to have it settled in a sharia court. Yet I wonder how many people (mostly women) get pressured into it.

And then there's this:

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi [the man who is in charge of the new courts] 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.

Readers may recall that Dalton McGuinty scrapped plans to bring sharia law to Ontario.

Posted by Terrence Watson on September 15, 2008 in International Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e2010534ab8073970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sharia law coming to the UK?:

Comments

The "sharia" courts are using a loophole in the arbitration act. The Jews use the same loophole for their religious courts, and there doesn't seem to be any indignation about that. The sooner that all religious courts are abolished the better off we all will be.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-09-15 9:39:41 AM


So long as participation in such systems is entirely voluntary, as it seems to be, a libertarian should applaud the fact that the legal systems are able to incorporate more choices of the people they serve. Why should parties to a dispute go through one system when BOTH sides prefer a different one? Freedom and respect for individual choice demands the inclusion of alternative systems of justice, including sharia. To a libertarian the concern that people might be pressured into participating in such courts is not an issue. They still have a choice and must take personal responsibility for it.

But if the worry that people being pressured into making choices they would not otherwise make is a concern, then using that as a basis for opposing sharia courts would not be where it ends. It would open the door to justification for the state interfering in ANY contracts agreed to by parties where the state, in their omnipotent wisdom, decides that one poarty was subject to undue pressure. So un-unionized employees might need state protection from big corporations who might "exploit" them in mutual agreed contracts and gas stations should have their prices regulated to prevent then "exploiting" customers by raising prices suddenly like they did with the hurricane crisis.

The women who agree to participate in sharia courts really do agree to do it. Libertarians must respect that choice, defend that choice, and also hold those who make that choice solely responsible for the consequences of it. Daughters who get less inheritence either are ok with that or they are stupid for using the sharia system. Either way, it is their own doing - their choice. Abused wives who stay with their husband and agree to anger management classes and mentoring rather than leaving him and seeking a criminal conviction also have made a choice and are solely responsible for the cosequences of it, no matter how obviously it might be a bad choice from our perspective.

Being a libertarian means biting some bullets sometimes that few others would bite. This is one of them. So long as the women involved really do have a legal choice and exercise the sharia option, it is not for us to tell them they cannot make that choice because we know better what is in their interests, even if we are right. Discourage them? Certainly! Prevent them? No. Facilitate choice? Yes. Which means for libertarians, this should be a "good news" story.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-09-15 9:41:18 AM


Hey do you have to be a Muslim to use the sharia option? Cause I tell ya sometimes my wife really pisses me off boy.

This could be a great stress relieving option. I mean fair is fair. Why should Muslim men be the only ones who can beat the crap out of their wives with impunity.

And speaking of wives, why can't I have a couple more ... especially a couple with good jobs. I think I might get used to those lazy crazy days of strong coffee, hookah pipes and male bonding.

Ya Canada is a great place to be a man.

Canada may be changing into something that guy will really dig.

Posted by: John V | 2008-09-15 9:59:11 AM


Fact Check,

Muslim women don't get to choose anything.

You sound like you need a really strong laxative. And do it before your anal retentive libertarian values seal your a$$hole shut forever.

Sharia is a throw back and we don't need that shit here.

Posted by: John V | 2008-09-15 10:04:00 AM


Geez, even the Ontarians rejected sharia law, and they're bringing back Apartheid and Jim Crow!

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-09-15 10:16:22 AM


There have been many cases here in Canada, where women have gone as far as having restraining orders put against their abusive husbands, only to have them return to do even worse atrocities,even kill their wifes. What makes anyone think "anger management" classes are going to stop an "out of control" control freak man of any race?

Posted by: glen | 2008-09-15 10:17:06 AM


Oh so because Muslim women might be pressured we should limit their ability to enter into binding contracts regarding arbitration? Oh yeah that's good for woman's rights.

Also I don't see why the government is in the business of managing marriages in the first place, why does divorce or marriage have any legal standing different than any other contract.

If you're worried about men abusing and bossing around women and not following orders etc, why not give the right to carry pistols back to women?

Restraining orders aren't very effective if there isn't hot lead and legal protection for the victim backing it up.

Posted by: Pete | 2008-09-15 10:34:33 AM


Geez, even the Ontarians rejected sharia law, and they're bringing back Apartheid and Jim Crow!
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 15-Sep-08 10:16:22 AM

Bwahahahahaha. Alberta should bring back it's Eugenics Board. It's work obviously wasn't finished.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-09-15 10:58:44 AM


Glen: "What makes anyone think "anger management" classes are going to stop an "out of control" control freak man of any race?" Muslims are not a race of people.

The Stig: "...Alberta should bring back it's Eugenics Board. It's work obviously wasn't finished." WTF?

Posted by: condor | 2008-09-15 2:25:55 PM


The Stig: "...Alberta should bring back it's Eugenics Board. It's work obviously wasn't finished." WTF?
Posted by: condor | 15-Sep-08 2:25:55 PM

That post seems to have disappeared into the ether. Ask Watson why he deleted it.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-09-15 2:51:08 PM


Stig --

wasn't me. I'm on the air.

T.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-09-15 3:04:16 PM


wasn't me. I'm on the air.
T.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 15-Sep-08 3:04:16 PM

I guess it just disappeared by itself.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-09-15 3:10:57 PM


I wonder how the stig manages to do all his globe-trotting on so many different airlines, spend time in London, New York, Paris, and still find the time to monitor this site for comments from Zebulon Pike. I swear, Zeb can't post a comment without this guy countering within minutes. Something doesn't quite add up here. I suspect stig spends a lot more time cruising the net than he does travelling the world.

Posted by: dp | 2008-09-15 8:07:31 PM


I wonder how the stig manages to do all his globe-trotting on so many different airlines, spend time in London, New York, Paris,
Posted by: dp | 15-Sep-08 8:07:31 PM

Bwahahhaha. I don't globe-trot. I spend most of my time in LA and London. And I guess they haven't got wireless in rural Alberta yet.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-09-15 8:23:01 PM


I swear, Zeb can't post a comment without this guy countering within minutes.
Posted by: dp | 15-Sep-08 8:07:31 PM

Is someone forcing you to read it?

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-09-15 8:25:07 PM


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

Looks like its time for a marshmallow roast.
We can start with the Magna Carta, then move onto the BNA...and for fun just to round out the evening, Lets save the US Constitution for last.
Because this crap will be coming overseas soon.
I don't care if Muslim nations want sharia law...hell its their right. But when western governments shove it down our throats in Christian based countries...something is really wrong. Time to take the west back.

Posted by: JC | 2008-09-15 8:35:17 PM


Is someone forcing you to read it?

Posted by: The Stig | 15-Sep-08 8:25:07 PM

No.

I'll be scrolling past from now on.

Posted by: dp | 2008-09-15 8:59:42 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.