Hope this catches on in the UK too

[MajGenl.Meade]

I'm not saying the US government should ban sharia law in the USA. All I'm saying is that it should be recognized for what it is - a maniac holding a gun

Why'd you leave out the first sentence of that paragraph and the words "all"? You then go on and on as if I said the government should be stepping in. I'm asking YOU to recognize what sharia law is - YOU. And I guess now you've sort of done that:

Personally I think any religious court/tribunal which attempts to settle civil disputes is just that

...but balanced on a stalking horse. What religious "court" settles civil disputes? Is that the Jewish thing (I don't know what they do)? I thought they all settled "church" membership issues.

[Big RR]

You then go on and on as if I said the government should be stepping in. I'm asking YOU to recognize what sharia law is - YOU.

the entire premise of this thread, as captioned in the title, is to have the jurisdiction of the sharia courts limited by the government, even if the parties consent to it. What I (or you or anyone else for that matter) think about the sharia courts is immaterial IMHO; indeed, I'm not even a proponent of commercial arbitration by secular groups like the AAA for a number of reasons. But people either have the freedom to act as they wish or they do not. I mioght think that they are jerks submitting to such "authorities", but what does that matter?

My understanding is that in parts of the orthodox jewish community some will permit rabbinical courts to settle civil disputes (even divorce in some cases) not just from a religious perspective, but for civil purposes as well. the courts can determine issues like support, etc. I'm not certain if their are any christian courts like these, but I do know some denominations like the Assemblies of God and the Pentacostals encourage mediation of disputes between members in front of the clergy or all members. Now this is a little different as mediation is generally nonbinding, but I'd be surprised if some Christian denominations did not offer arbitration services as well (which is what any private court, in effect does); I would bet the Amish and even some Moravian communities do just that.

I think the reason we see it more among orthodox jews and stricter moslems is because these religions pervade every day life to a level which christianity usually does not. So many in these communities are more willing to accept religious domination of their cicil communities. So long as it is consensual, IMHO it is not my concern.

[Scooter]

Sometimes though, it really isn't consensual in practice. The experience in Ontario a few years back is an example - for decades, rabbinical and Catholic chancery courts had been recognized under the provincial Arbitration Act as authorized to arbitrate a broad swath of civil matters (always subject to their decisions conforming to the law of the land). Then suddenly there was a call for sharia courts to be authorized under the same Act, and of course all hell broke loose. The government appointed a former provincial attorney general to inquire and report on the issue, and she found that there was significant opposition from Muslim women because, particularly with regard to family matters, sharia law did not view them as equal to men, and they were concerned that they would feel coerced by their communities to submit to a system of arbitration where the deck was stacked against them. Interestingly, opening the discussion also brought forth Jewish and Catholic women who said the same thing. The end result was that the government, recognizing that it could not authorize arbitration by some religions and not others, decided that it would not authorize the use of religious arbitration at all in matters of family law, nor in any other circumstance where a religion's laws did not recognize the equality of the parties appearing before its courts.

I think it was a wise middle course between banning the use of religious-based arbitration completely, and allowing unfettered use of it in circumstances where the "choice" to engage in religious-based arbitration is in some measure coerced and would have results would be seen as inequitable under secular law.

[Big RR]

The end result was that the government, recognizing that it could not authorize arbitration by some religions and not others, decided that it would not authorize the use of religious arbitration at all in matters of family law, nor in any other circumstance where a religion's laws did not recognize the equality of the parties appearing before its courts.

I think it was a wise middle course between banning the use of religious-based arbitration completely, and allowing unfettered use of it in circumstances where the "choice" to engage in religious-based arbitration is in some measure coerced and would have results would be seen as inequitable under secular law.
User avatar
Scooter Posts: 6256Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 1:04 pmLocation: Toronto, ON

Well that makes a lot of sense since the ban is across the board and not aimed at any one religion. the religious courts would, I assume, retain jurisdiction in purely religious matters such as whether someone is excommunicated or whatever.

[Scooter]

Yes, for example, chancery courts still determine whether someone will be granted an annulment for the purpose of being able to remarry in the Catholic Church. But they would not longer be able to arbitrate the secular separation or divorce agreements that would sometimes accompany those religious annulments.