Justice For Some?

[sonofajoiner]

I don't know why this worries me so much, but my gut reaction to reading this article about various religious communities being allowed to apply their own cultural and religious laws to both civil and criminal trials, is certainly one of unease.

What does everyone here think? Is it ok for communities to apply their own religiously derived rules even if, as the article states, they operate to some extent within, or alongside, the english criminal justice system? Or should everyone be subject to english law alone?

[Araneus]

I don't really have a problem with it provided that

1. The local courts operate entirely within common law, and
2. ALL participants voluntarily submit to the local court's jurisdiction

[Jocky]

I shared your gut reaction sonofajoiner, but when I stop to think about it I can see that using such institutions to resolve civil disputes is not really much different from any other form of arbitration. As long as all parties enter into it freely, the proceedings are open to the public and the decisions can be overturned by the High Court if they are shown to be unreasonable, I can see no objection.

The main problem is how free consent is established. For instance, a woman who has committed a "crime" under Sharia Law might come under substantial pressure from family and community to submit to an Islamic court, even though she might be personally reluctant. This might not really constitute freedom of choice. However, I think that this issue is really about empowering people to stand up for their civil rights - I don't see how you could ban particular forms of civil arbitration for that reason.

Obviously criminal matters are an entirely different thing - I think they should remain subject to English or Scots law alone. The cited instance of a Somali court dealing with a serious assault and settling it through payment of compensation is not acceptable IMO - such cases should be judged on the same basis for all members of society, regardless of their cultural or religious affiliation. For instance, the 'guilty' party in that instance presumably did not end up with a formal criminal record - and if he is guilty of a stabbing then he should certainly have one.

I disagree with the Somali quoted in the article saying "Us Somalis, wherever we are in the world, we have our own law". When in Rome, you should get prosecuted on the same basis as the Romans do. If I commited a crime in Somalia, would I be allowed to get away with a "Not Proven" verdict from a court operating under Scots Law? I severely doubt it!

[Cuddles]

I see no difference between this and regular vigilanteism. We have laws and appointed law-keepers for a reason. What is the difference between a group of civilians forming their own court for things that are not part of the law of the land and dishing out penalties, and a group of people forming a lynch mob and hanging someone for something that is not part of the law of the land? Bear in mind that the same Sharia law they are enforcing outside of British law is exactly the same Sharia law within which people have murdered family members. Condoning any part of their vigilanteism is effectively condoning brothers shooting their sisters in public because they don't agree with their choice of husband. We have police and courts for a very good reason, and if anyone tries to take things into their own hands they should have every book that can be found thrown at them.

[Jocky]

What is the difference between a group of civilians forming their own court for things that are not part of the law of the land and dishing out penalties, and a group of people forming a lynch mob and hanging someone for something that is not part of the law of the land?

I don't think this is an altogether sound analogy. The difference is that these courts are formal, public and most importantly voluntary procedures, whereas vigilanteism is none of these things.

I do agree that these courts should never have the right to dish out quasi-criminal penalties of any kind. However, as a voluntary way of resolving civil disputes, and given that the High Court has the power overturn unreasonable decisions, they could under some circumstances serve a useful purpose.

Here's a thought There's nothing stopping us from setting up a court to judge wrongdoings among the skeptical community by the Holy Law of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! You wouldn't want to be found guilty of a false analogy before the Throne of His Noodlieness Himself, now would you Cuddles

[sonofajoiner]

Obviously criminal matters are an entirely different thing - I think they should remain subject to English or Scots law alone. The cited instance of a Somali court dealing with a serious assault and settling it through payment of compensation is not acceptable IMO - such cases should be judged on the same basis for all members of society, regardless of their cultural or religious affiliation. For instance, the 'guilty' party in that instance presumably did not end up with a formal criminal record - and if he is guilty of a stabbing then he should certainly have one.

That's the bit I find alarming. I have no particular problem with religion coming into civil arbitration and so on, so long as it can be demonstrated that all parties involved have come to the table willingly, as it were, and that it is generally in the interest of all involved to include a religious aspect to proceedings.

But criminal cases? Surely there are no cultural grey areas wrt to stabbing someone? I mean I'm no theology expert, but surely stabbing someone is a crime no matter what religion you follow? I accept that, as with many criminal cases, there can be mitigating circumstances (self-defence for example) but I don't see how a persons religion comes into it? Why should a somali muslim living in the UK not have to face the same legal process as a british hindu or welsh atheist or whatever else? I'm fairly certain that if I committed a violent crime, I wouldn't be allowed to insist on being allowed to talk it through with a bunch of other atheists rather than going to court, where I may be judged by christians or sikhs who don't understand me . And that's my major objection. It's yet another way in which religious beliefs are privileged over and above everything else. (And it's yet another way of allowing people to seperate themselves from society as a whole, only to keep hearing how 'excluded', misunderstood and isolated these same people supposedly are, but that's a whole other can of worms ).

[Cuddles]

I don't think this is an altogether sound analogy. The difference is that these courts are formal, public and most importantly voluntary procedures, whereas vigilanteism is none of these things.

But what is the chance they are actually voluntary? I seriously doubt there is the chance for many people to say no, especially Islamic women. The KKK was formal and public, but I don't think anyone will argue that was anything other than vigilanteism.

[Cuddles]

But criminal cases? Surely there are no cultural grey areas wrt to stabbing someone? I mean I'm no theology expert, but surely stabbing someone is a crime no matter what religion you follow?

And here is the problem. There are not just grey areas, there are areas where different cultures say the exact opposite. Under Sharia law, if your sister marries someone you don't like it is perfectely acceptable to kill her, if a woman is raped it is considered her fault for not saying no, if someone wrights a book your leaders don't like it is not only acceptable but actually your sworn duty to hurt them down and kill them. I don't know much about Jewish or other courts, but I have no doubt that there are plenty of examples in them as well where they are in direct conflict with our own laws and culture, even if they are not always as extreme.

[Jocky]

I don't think this is an altogether sound analogy. The difference is that these courts are formal, public and most importantly voluntary procedures, whereas vigilanteism is none of these things.

But what is the chance they are actually voluntary? I seriously doubt there is the chance for many people to say no, especially Islamic women. The KKK was formal and public, but I don't think anyone will argue that was anything other than vigilanteism.

I agree that there is an issue with societal pressure forcing people to submit without real free consent, and I accept Islamic women are one group who might well face such pressure. I have already expressed that concern in my first post in this thread. However, I am not convinced that this issue is in itself a reason to ban these courts from arbitrating in civil (not criminal!) disputes - although a specific instance of this type of pressure being brought to bear unduly could well form good grounds for appealing to a higher court.

People face community pressure through many different means to conform to all kinds of unfortunate things :( This is not something you can readily prevent. The way forward IMO is to empower people through all possible means to stand up for their rights.

I think the KKK is also a false analogy. How can you call something open and public when most of the members went round with pillowcases on their heads, and they would frequently show up to mete out their 'justice' without warning in the middle of the night? Remember also that the religious 'courts' can have their decisions reviewed and overturned by the High Court: conversely, the KKK were not big on being open to judicial review ...

[Jocky]

Surely there are no cultural grey areas wrt to stabbing someone?

And here is the problem. There are not just grey areas, there are areas where different cultures say the exact opposite ... [snip] ... where they are in direct conflict with our own laws and culture

For the record, I agree that English / Scots / European laws (as applicable) must take precedence in all criminal matters. Other jurisdictions should not be allowed to rule in such cases.