(no subject)

[lavendersparkle]

Interesting addition of 'Law in Action' about the use of religious courts to augment the secular courts in the UK

It avoids the 'Argh, they'll introduce sharia law and you won't be able to go outside without a burka!' hysteria that tend to infect discussion of this and instead looks at it within the perspective that religious courts can be used as arbitrators within civil cases. I can't really see good reason for not allowing people to use a religious court for arbitration in a civil case if all parties agree to it. There's the argument that there will be communal pressure for people to use the religious courts even when it's against their best interest but I think it's a bit of an authoritarian stretch to not allow people resolve their disputes outside of the court system in a way they both agree to to protect against this. By that logic one might start declaring contracts invalid because they don't think that the original contract was in the best interest of one of the parties in the eyes of the judge.

Comments

[neonchameleon.livejournal.com]

I have no objection to people settling out of court however they see fit - but the law of the land takes precidence where either party wishes to call on it. *shrug*

[curious-reader.livejournal.com]

I heard how much women suffer under the Muslim law even in the UK. They can't escape from it either. Well, I guess it depends on the family. In some Muslim countries like Pakistan and India they treat women well, in others they don't. In Muslim law stoning is allowed. I don't think or hope they do it in a Western country where human rights would forbid it. In Jewish law they always require at least two witnesses but which frum Jew would watch a woman having sex. According to the law the man would be stoned, too. But the Rabbis always tried to avoid any kind of death penalty. In Muslim law the husband can simply accuse his wife. There is still stoning in Iran. It is not just a horror story from my Iranian part of the family. A few month ago somebody who was not a part of my family came from Tabris (North West Iran). (My maternal family is originally from there as well. But those who did not flee to Europe are living in Teheran because it is more liberal.) She was not allowed to write any criticism or even love stories in Iran. She had to flee. She wrote stories about stoning of women as it is still reality. There are organizations in the UK for helping Muslim women who were threaten by their family. They help them to leave. It was actually a talk about women beating in Judaism that it does sometimes exist. There are Jewish organization who help those Jewish women as well as Muslim organizations who do the same for Muslim women. If the government turns a blind eye to those I do not improve people making their own laws when it is against human rights.

[lavendersparkle.livejournal.com]

As I wrote, the idea is that religious courts could act as arbitrators in civil disputes (e.g. inheritance disputes, disputes between businesses etc). They wouldn't be allowed to judge in criminal cases. Even in civil cases their decisions can be overruled by the secular courts if their decisions are deemed unreasonable.

[curious-reader.livejournal.com]

A civil case can be a family issue. Maybe when a woman tries to complain they completely overrule her as she has no rights for example under Islamic law.

[lavendersparkle.livejournal.com]

The way that religious courts interact with the UK legal system is that under British law in a civil dispute all of the perties involved in a dispute can agree to a form of resolution such as an arbitor and, if all parties agree to the arbitration before it takes place, the British legal courts will enforce the arbitor's decision unless the judge thinks that it is grossly unfair. The arbitor involved could be a representative of an organisation that specialises in industrial relations arbitration, a legally trained third party that both parties involved in the dispute trust, or a religious court.

The important thing is that all the parties involved in the dispute agree to the arbitration process, so under British law if a woman did not agree to have her divorce settlement arbitrated by a sharia court, any decision a sharia court came to on the case would have no legal authority under British law. Yes, a woman could be pressurised to make her agree to submit to sharia arbitration but in this case:
a) the people pressurising her could also threaten her to agree to a particular divorce settlement through the secular legal system
b) if a woman did not freely give consent to arbitration she would be able to ask the secular courts to discard the arbitration decision on because she did not consent to it freely.

Finally, women do have rights under Islamic law.

[curious-reader.livejournal.com]

Thanks for that information. I just had no idea how it supposed to work. I did not know the British get involved.

Women are in practice, however, mostly oppressed. I know there are Muslim countries who treat women well and they have education. Iraki and Yemenite women for example are often well educated which is not the case in every Muslim country, unfortunately. In Iran it depends if the husband let them or not.

[naath.livejournal.com]

I don't see anything wrong with 'out of court' settlement of civil cases *provided* all parties agree to the method of settlement. It worries me that in conservative faith communities (of all stripes) women might be forced to acceed to the demands of the faith leaders in these matters - leaders who presumably have a great deal of both emotional and practical power over members of their communities; the same leaders who see women from their communities being forced into marriages to people they've never met (for instance).

I think for a lot of people the 'choice' of which court to get a settlement in would be basically nonexistant because of pressures from their family, friends, leaders... of course it is technically possible for a person to say 'screw you I'm doing what I want' but that might mean leaving behind their entire way of life.

I'm not sure I *can* really understand this - I speak from an extremely privalleged position; my life *has* afforded me a get-out from my parents' rule, I have been able to extricate myself from them and make my own choices and my life has pushed me in the direction of an intentional family that works for me. But doing that was hard and I assume that it can only be harder when leaving your family means finding a place in an entirely different culture.

[curious-reader.livejournal.com]

Hi,

Where are your parents coming from? I am sorry to hear that you were one of the oppressed ones. My parents are no computer geeks. They don't understand so much English anyway. They won't check me out on the computer. My Dad is German and my Mum is originally from Iran but grew up in Germany. I also needed to get away from my parents because they overprotected me like a baby and did not let me make my own decisions. I had to make them understand where I feel happier by running away. I am not expecting that you write your story. I only wonder about your ethical background. Mine is Azerbaidjani-Iranian and German (maybe Polish as well as our surename is Polish). My grandfather who I don't know was really oppressive but he was a Marxist. He did not believe in any religion. From what I heard about him I am actually glad that I have never met him. I became a Masorti Jew. I am sure he would have been completely in my way.

[naath.livejournal.com]

My parents are British born and raised, white as they come. They are also Catholic and tried to controll every aspect of my life for many years. Getting out of that meant starting my life over and having to sort out all the things they messed up in my head.

Being British, speaking the language and knowing the culture of England makes it much much easier for me to strike out on my own.

[curious-reader.livejournal.com]

Oh dear! When people are fanatic about this they can be horrible. The Catholics have as many restrictions as Muslims in some way. You cannot have a boy-friend before you get married. You need to be a virgin. I think it is silly. How can experience a relationship if you have not been into it. Even if you get into complete wrong ones or just try out a non commited one it is still experience. You learn what is right for and what not. I like to make my own decision as well.

[curious-reader.livejournal.com]

Just to ad. I am talking about my Iranian grandfather. If Muslim or not they all have the same attitude towards women. I don't my German one either. I did not hear much from him. My Dad never said anything negative about him.

[robhu.livejournal.com]

Hello!

I am fairly sure I saw / heard (but didn't actually meet) you at [Bad username or site: atreic' / @ livejournal.com]'s leaving party. I was the guy who was hovering around by the door frame.

I mentionned that someone was saying interesting things about Judaism in my post about it, and [Bad username or site: nina321' / @ livejournal.com] (who is a close friend of mine) just said on the phone that she thought that person was you! Apparently you were at university together?

Could you point me in the direction of the posts you made explaining why you want to become a Jew? I find this highly interesting. I was a Christian once, and because of my inquisitive nature I find religious issues terribly interesting. I've never met anyone who is a practising Jew before (or indeed anyone who intends to convert).

I'm friending you as I think you sound pretty interesting :-)