http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7488790.stm
You can understand why the Archbishop of Canterbury would see no problem with a system of law based on religious beliefs, but a lawyer?
And again, he has not proposed it as a system of law, but has pointed out that in mediation exercises where both sides agree on an overall framework for dispute resolution they can chose pretty much whatever system they like (provided that it is not illegal- no duels or trials by ordeal).
If two Muslims in a dispute with each other decide that they wish to settle their differences based on their interpretation of Islamic law, and both agree to abide by eth decision, why is this problem? How would you propose we stopped it?
If it is completely outside the scope of the law, why should he even mention it? Probably because what is, in effect, a private agreement, might impinge on other people and the law.
Yeah I read that in the Metro this morning.
Headline: Sharia Law could be part of Legal Process.
Body of the Story: No it can't but two parties can privately agree to any form of mediation including Sharia.
Slow news week?
Because private agreements, (contracts for instance), are not outside of the scope of the law.Originally Posted by Mulder
Read what he said, this is about using Islamic law through mutual consent, not having it impinge on those who do not wish to be subject to it, and stressing that in England and Wales, Islamic law is subservient to English and Welsh law.
The various innovative ways which mutually agreed dispute resolution can be used is an interesting aspect of legal policy, and was of much interest to his audience, why not mention it? Given the (deliberate?) misunderstanding of his message and that of the AB of C’s a while ago by eth media and various political groups, an underlining of the access which Muslims (and others) have to Islamic law in England and Wales if they want it is worthwhile.
Giving Muslims their own laws, even subsurvient to UK laws, simply serves to isolate them from the rest of the community. It makes them more inward-looking, while making outsiders suspicious that they are being given special privilieges. It also further extends the principle that laws used in this country can be based on religion.
I intend to invent my own legal system, based on information channeled from Alpha Centauri 7. It will be used by me and a few friends. It will, of course, be subservient to UK laws. I'm sure it will soon be recognised along with Sharia.
That's the point it allready is!
Muslims aren’t being "given their own laws", and there is nothing to stop non Muslims from agreeing to use Islamic law in mediation, or you could used D&D rules to settle a dispute, or astrology (provided everyone agreed to the same interpretation) or even a coin toss. If you were really silly and masochistic you could even decide to use lawyers!
I had a little bet with myself that Mulder would post this story; as inevitible as the Daily Express' front page.
Who won?
Cool. I maxed out on my gaming skill and am raking in the long green*...you could used D&D rules to settle a dispute...
*gold
OK, so no one cares about the principle of using religious beliefs in legal disputes. I get it! I'm moving on ....
can you explain why we should be bothered if all parties agree to abide by these rules, and if we should be bothered, how should we prevent such dispute resolution taking place?
No, because I've moved on. Keep up ...
but you will stick around enough to tell us all that you're not in this thread any more so we should not ask you to try and defend your seemingly faith based position on what this speech said, and why it was VERY BAD INDEED (TM).
OK I think I'm up to speed now.
When I said 'moved on' I meant in the modern sense of 'giving up a pointless struggle'. I didn't mean I'd never reply to anything else on the thread ever. Who knows, it might even get interesting eventually.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks