sharia for the uk?

[holy king]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7488790.stm

Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Principles of sharia law could play a role in some parts of the legal system, the Lord Chief Justice has said.

Lord Phillips, the most senior judge in England and Wales, said there was no reason sharia law's principles could not be used in mediation.

However, he said this would still be subject to the "jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts".

Sharia is a set of principles which govern the way many Muslims believe they should live their life.

The Archbishop of Canterbury prompted controversy when he said use of certain aspects of the law "seems unavoidable".

In a speech at the East London Muslim Centre in Whitechapel, Lord Phillips said that sharia suffered from "widespread misunderstanding".

Lord Phillips said: "There is no reason why sharia principles, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution.

"It must be recognised, however, that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales."

Severe physical punishments such as flogging, stoning and the cutting off of hands would not be acceptable, he said.

He added: "There can be no question of such courts sitting in this country, or such sanctions being applied here.

"So far as the law is concerned, those who live in this country are governed by English and Welsh law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts."

'Misunderstood'

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, had been misunderstood when it was reported in February that he said British Muslims could be governed by sharia law, the judge said.

Dr Williams suggested that sharia could play a role in "aspects of marital law, the regulation of financial transactions and authorised structures of mediation and conflict resolution".

Lord Phillips said: "It was not very radical to advocate embracing sharia law in the context of family disputes, for example, and our system already goes a long way towards accommodating the archbishop's suggestion.

"It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law."

Inayat Bunglawala from the Muslim Council of Britain told BBC News that sharia law applied only to civil matters.

He said: "I think it's important to clarify that English common law already allows us to go to mediation to whichever third party we wish. "So that is why you have sharia council, that is why you have Jewish courts. It is a truly voluntary arrangement.

"There is no parallel legal system. This system cannot override English common law system at all."

 

[Winner]

One small step at a time, Baghdad wasn't built in a day either...

 

[holy king]

well, seriously: 1300 year old religious law in the eu? is this just some crazy old man or has he any real power?

 

[Winner]

well, seriously: 1300 year old religious law in the eu? is this just some crazy old man or has he any real power?

My thoughts exactly. What does any religious code has to do with European secular states? It has no place there, for any purpose.

 

[RedRalph]

Basically the only thing I agree with Winner on. no religion has any place whatsoever in the legal system of any state nowadays. Its beyond a joke that english archbishops and chief justices seem determined to give it a chance. Maybe they should go to Saudi and Iran and see what effect theocratic law has there.

 

[Mirc]

Sharia law in the UK?

Religion mixed with state law?

No thank you. I'll have my beliefs and religion, you'll have yours, but mixing them with law will not lead us anywhere.
(and that comes from a religious person)

 

[RedRalph]

Is this the 5% of arguments I'm right about Winner?

 

[philippe]

I think it's just civil law (divorces) and the laws are required to comply with British law.

I'm on the fence here.

I'll explain further, later on.

 

[Mise]

If people want their fates determined by an arcane arbitration system, then they have every right to it. I believe in freedom, and if two people sign a legally binding agreement to have personal, marital, or familial disputes settled by the church, then so be it. Lord Phillips makes it clear that any decision made by the church must not violate English Law. This is perfectly legal, so I don't see what the fuss is about.

I agree that religious law is eminently stupid, but people have a right to be stupid.

 

[Grisu]

No thank you. I'll have my beliefs and religion, you'll have yours, but mixing them with law will not lead us anywhere.
(and that comes from a religious person)

my thoughts exactly (except the part about being religious myself, of course )

 

[Winner]

Is this the 5% of arguments I'm right about Winner?

Well, you basically said the same thing I did, there is no dispute.

 

[Mise]

It's not mixing religion with the law, it's requiring two consenting adults to adhere to a legally binding contract.

 

[Grisu]

It's not mixing religion with the law, it's requiring two consenting adults to adhere to a legally binding contract.

as long as it's about stuff that wouldn't be handled by the law otherwise I agree with you. (and upon rereading the article this seems to be the case here)
But what if it's about replacing the local jurisdiction with a religious one (even if consensual) it becomes unacceptable IMHO.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

Do any of you all understand what alternative dispute resolution means?

 

[Pannonius]

well, seriously: 1300 year old religious law in the eu? is this just some crazy old man or has he any real power?

 

[holy king]

see? that's a problem. not some guy maybe being outraged over a puppy.

 

[really]

If people want their fates determined by an arcane arbitration system, then they have every right to it. I believe in freedom, and if two people sign a legally binding agreement to have personal, marital, or familial disputes settled by the church, then so be it. Lord Phillips makes it clear that any decision made by the church must not violate English Law. This is perfectly legal, so I don't see what the fuss is about.

I agree that religious law is eminently stupid, but people have a right to be stupid.

Religious law isn't much more arcane than English common law which goes back 800 odd years.

The house of lords is the supreme court of the UK and it in itself is arcane.

It even has a religious element as there are Church of England bishops in it.

I think the UK needs some constitutional reform to bring it into the 19th century, rather than trying to give similar rights to more recently represented religions.

 

[Mise]

Religious law isn't much more arcane than English common law which goes back 800 odd years.

The house of lords is the supreme court of the UK and it in itself is arcane.

It even has a religious element as there are Church of England bishops in it.

I think the UK needs some constitutional reform to bring it into the 19th century, rather than trying to give similar rights to more recently represented religions.

Whatever . You can replace "arcane" with whatever adjective you want, it wouldn't change anything for me

 

[Riffraff]

He said: "I think it's important to clarify that English common law already allows us to go to mediation to whichever third party we wish. "So that is why you have sharia council, that is why you have Jewish courts. It is a truly voluntary arrangement.

"There is no parallel legal system. This system cannot override English common law system at all."

Missed this bit people?

Basically, it seems that in cases which aren't discussed in courts anyway - people can find solutions in any way they want. Consulting aincent storybooks probably isn't a very wise choice, but in a free country...

 

[Arwon]

Jews in England already do this. I'm waiting for the outrage over that.