Eurabia? British Law Now Allows ENFORCEMENT of SHARIA

Yeah, that is so crazy, saying that people should be able to jointly agree on other rules regarding what happens on the breakup of their marriage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenuptial_agreement

I'm sure the sharia court will refer the wicked slut's appeal to the proper British civil court.

Bullshit. A contract is invalid when one party was forced into it, was unable to understand the consequences or the whole contract is immoral or against public policy.

Now just think one second about women in domestic violence cases or divorce cases. Do you really believe these women will have the option to say "no" to such a contract? Can't you see this is opening Pandora's box?

I don't recall children ever being a party to a prenuptial agreement. Oh, wait! Children can't be party to contracts. That's why the law protects them.

But which law will their parents choose for them?

Well, no she'd have to take it there herself. But I guess that's the point. If she hasn't the will power to do that, why would she ever stand up for herself at all? I mean, it's not like she'll be the divorcing type in the first place.

I'm sure having lived all her life in a culture that views her as a man's property, she'll be very assertive with her rights!

Are these women likely to report domestic violence?

Not that I understand why domestic violence would go to arbitration - I've never seen the criminal courts order such a process.

Of course she won't, but does it matter? British law, Sharia law...what difference does it make to her?

So the law shall only protect those who are strong enough to stand up for their rights? What a great new world.

Well, gosh...what difference would it make to anyone? Sharia for all!

You do understand the difference between a civil and criminal case right?

That's an odd statement. Aren't they both clearly different? Wouldn't one benefit her more than the other?

As I understand it, it's a contractual choice of law issue.

Criminal law can't be superseded. So there goes that rape, incest, battery, etc. argument.

Divorce arbitration is generally entered into after the filing of divorce. I mean, if she's strong enough to assert a divorce then why can't she choose her own body of law?

Does such a hypothetical, battered wife syndrome woman strike you as the type to employ any legal system?

No, none of them do.

Except in my world, Domestic Violence is not a civil case. That's a criminal act tried in a criminal court.

British law is based on justice. Sharia law is based on patriarch power-obsessed men who like to control their wife's lives and reduce their dignity to fuck-machines and household slaves.

Yes...but you start small - it will end up involving criminal cases too
eventually. Mecca wasn't built in a day you know!

Dude, that is fucking harsh.






It's true, but still...fucking harsh.

Why do you assume that SHE was the one asking for the divorce?

Yeah, but given the choice I think they would chose what will benefit them.

You clearly said what difference does it make to her? It does make a difference to her.

How can you speak for all these women? If none had spoke up there wouldn't much of an issue about it. It would be well hid.

Its not.

Do you understand the difference between cases of legitimate arbitration and abuse of arbitration to fulfill medieval and primitive religious "law"?

I guess they could be talking about protection orders. Are protection orders handled civilly in the UK too? But I digress, giving control of that particular power to a system that has a history of abuse (up to and including the present day) towards the female gender might...not be the best idea.

I'm gonna need a British lawyer to explain to me what this story means by "cases involving domestic violence." Because if it's stretching to a simple tort battery claim (which any criminal battery can give rise to) then this article is plainly deceptive. I wasn't aware that the Brits somehow handled DV through civil courts - and quite frankly I don't comprehend how that would work.

Why is it OK for the Jews to do it? Because their legal code isn't explicitly discriminatory perhaps?

Specifics:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

Amazing that any Brit supports this. Sharia law by definition is sexist.

As it should be.

As was already pointed out, standard secular legal protections overrule any of the decisions made using the religious laws.

I think the big issue here is that Paladin seems to be arguing from a "OMG MUSLIMS" point of view, rather than having a legal rationale behind him.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in the USA if you get divorced you don't need to go to court over it so long as both parties can reach a resolution out of court?

If so, then guess what...

YOUR OWN COUNTRY ALREADY ALLOWS THIS.

Let me run through a series of steps, and then see which ones Paladin thinks shouldn't be legally allowed.


1) Couple are married.

2) Marriage becomes untenable, and the point is reached where a divorce is necessary.

3) The two parties visit an arbitrator of their mutual choosing, and sign a contract that they will abide by the decisions made there, based upon a previously agreed on set of rules.

4) That decision is now legally enforceable based on the contract, however it is obviously subject to the normal legal limitations on contracts, including the fact that either party being forced into the contract would make it null and void.

Now, that agreed on set of rules that is used could be anything...secular rules, catholic doctrine, sharia law, even something as random as the throw of a dice if that is what they agreed to use.

Are you seriously saying that every single dispute between individuals should be legally forced to go before a civil court?

Got a minor disagreement with your neighbor over a random issue. Maybe you would ordinarily just share a couple of beers and work it out. Nope, not allowed anymore, you have to go to a civil court to sort it out.

Believe me, I am not a fan of Sharia law at all, and in any situation where I knew the parties involved I would be encouraging the woman to take the matter to a civil court. However I can see no legal grounds for preventing people using it as a arbitrative framework for their disputes if that is what they both want.

OK...choice of law has been around for...I don't know how long...but the point is, anyone who enters into any contract in this country can have a choice of law provision.

Think of a country you don't like. Go on, try. Got one in your head yet? OK, now think how fucked up the laws of that country are. Now try to realize that I could enter into a contract and set my choice of law to use, in case of general disputes or arbitration, the law of Saudi Arabia.

Disturbing huh?

But I guess that's why it's called choice.

I concur.

From this, it looks like they handle protection orders in civil courts, but everything else is handled in criminal court. Read it and tell me what you think.

Yeah, it's not too dissimilar from American courts in that you file for an injunction (in the form of a TRO, temporary restraining order). TRO is a remedy usually ordered in American civil courts.

That said, I'm similarly unclear from this article about how power is given to "Sharia Courts." I can't fathom that there's now a parallel civil law system. Others have suggested it's like judge Judy arbitration and choice of law doctrines. If the latter is the case, I don't see any TRO being filtered through that junction. I just don't see how restraining orders (of the DV type) intersect with choice of law type arbitrations.

No, my argument was from the "OMG Sharia is now an accepted parallel system in the UK even though it's an affront to everything western civilization is supposed to stand for."

I'd agree the situations would be similar if:

1. Women in this country were owned by their fathers or husbands.

2. Women in this country were not raised to understand that they have legal rights and can exercise them at will.

3. Women in this country were at risk for being socially pressured to take part in a "voluntary" system that puts them at a disadvantage.

4. The arbitration were conducted by a religious authority.

But, yes, beyond those insignificant differences, you're right: we do the same thing.