(no subject)

[johnny9fingers]

As usual, I may have been guilty of an over-reaction.

"The Archbishop of Canterbury's message was not that there should be one law for Muslims and another for the rest. What he seemed to be positing was that the secular legal system should accommodate the traditional sharia councils which exist around the country, dealing with family and other disputes. One model could be the Beth Din, the rabbinical courts set up by a UK statute more than 100 years ago, which means they are recognised within the legal system." *

Aspects of Sharia law subordinate to English law...I could live with that: with the proper safeguards in place, of course.

Well, it appears that Rowan may have been right to bring up the debate after all.
(Or it could be I looked around me at the other folk that were up in arms about this and found I didn't like some of the company I was keeping - however the reaction was pretty universal: the Law of the Land is England. We don't have a written constitution; we have a Parliament, a Monarch, and almost a thousand years of case law. Our rights and obligations have evolved over the centuries: not always for the best specifically, but in the long run always improving.)

And I would not care to see Dr Williams hounded out of office. He can and should bring up difficult subjects. Though whether as a nation we agree with him or not is another matter.

I still reckon we should chain young folk to their desks and force them all to learn Latin. But put that down to an old man's splenetic irritation.



*
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,2254953,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=uknews  

Comments

[vlion.livejournal.com]

*nod* William's remarks were taken out of context, but it still is a very knotty problem on the horizon.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

In general I agree with you. However I have a 'live-and-let-live' mentality: and as long as such agreements honour everyones' Human Rights, and the law of the land, then I'm not against. If, for example, it becomes apparent that the limited form of Sharia Law, operating in a subordinate fashion to State law, discriminates against women, then it will have to be modified or removed.
But if folk want cultural arbitration within the law, I have no objection in principle. I think we should deal with it on a case by case basis as usual.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

you must not be familiar with sharia law, then. under sharia, women aren't even allowed to represent themselves. only a male member of her household may speak for her, and they negotiate based on their needs, not hers.


In which case, Sharia would have to be extensively modified before I could accept it.

There seem to be a huge debate amongst the Muslim community as to what constitutes 'Sharia' law. If they are being deliberately and deceitfully disingenuous in their explanations of it, I think a backlash will happen and Muslims in England will have a pretty hard time. We have long memories: ask any German; or for that matter, Frenchman.

However, Muslim women appear to be taking a lead in promoting this: which confuses things for those of us on the outside. This seems unlike the situation in Canada, where Muslim women were the most vociferous opposition to the introduction of any Sharia based arbitration.

Obviously we shall only be reasonable as long as the folk asserting their cultural identity are reasonable in return. Else the English can be just as intolerant of extremism as other nations, if not more so. We can be quite stubborn when pushed.

Frickinmuck

[(Anonymous)]

James,

Please stop arguing with that nice Canadian lady, when she is so transparently correct. After all, you would have little problem seeing the point when Malcolm X rather famously said that it was almost always right to be tolerant of other people's tolerance, but that there comes a point (hopefully far beyond where my daily life takes me) where it is not acceptable to tolerate the intolerance of others. This is not an issue of being liberal but of being honest and rational and fair.
As for more Muslim men than women apparently supporting a few bits of Sharia, i have no problem in disagreeing vigorously, despite this. For example, in many parts of Africa, what those of a nervous disposition refer to as FGM is mostly done to women by women - and if you ever tried to defend that on the basis of it's a woman thing or that we should not interfere with their culture, I would happily hold you down while Emily expresses herself.

I am in fact very intolerant: it is merely that there is little reason to be intolerant of many of the things that make others intolerant, but easy to find items of my own about which to do it. Keep religion out of schools and courts - if they must believe noodles, let them carry on influencing architecture and paintings instead. What is more,I know that you know this, so think that you are just winding the poor lady up: please desist.

N

Re: Frickinmuck

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

I agree I hold a number of conflicting opinions here, m'dear. I'm trying to find a place of accommodation with the religious that does not effect the rest of us in a significantly deleterious fashion. frickinmuck is more than able to defend herself, she is one very clever lass indeed, and I take her points very seriously in my present uncertainty.
There are times when I'm uncertain of what I think: I am distrustful of kneejerk reactions, even when they are mine. And I think everyone knows my kneejerk reaction; which was considerably less temperate than lady frickinmuck's: ergo, I check myself and get responses and modify until I'm comfortable with both the justice of my position (should there be possibility of justice) and the respect for others (and other cultures) I should always observe. Respected in the breach, alas, rather more than I would hope. But then again, I fight against my 'Little England' tendencies.

You really should set up an LJ account my dear, you'd be amusing in, and amused by, some of the debates.

My dear, you used my given name, shame on you: now everyone will be doing it. Hope M is well.

[winterlion.livejournal.com]

Thank you for posting this.

There are real issues with other-cultural courts being brought in under a greater legal body - but that is a separate set of issues.

If it's any help, Sharia law is a body of consensus by Imams - and a good historical equivalent would be the book of Leviticus - or even English Common Law.
Rather different assumptions, rather different results - but came to using similar techniques and dealt with similarly ... sort of.

This might be a step towards recovering equal rights to Islam. It's been a couple hundred years or more since any of the Islamic countries have had that- and they should. By not being hounded by blind prejudice - as happens in the US and *sigh* Canada- there's a chance to find communication.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Though it must be said Sharia law has to get to grips with women's rights: both in representing themselves and in the fairness of the arbitration imposed upon women. Else it's merely reinforcing another, different injustice, which we in the general community have been striving to diminish and remove for more than a hundred years.
frickinmuck's points are still valid alas: but there still may be ways forward.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

That is pretty damnably appalling by anyones standards.
However, withing the article itself contains what I thought was the way forward and I quote: "Fortunately not every Muslim nation is this bad, but that's in part because Shariah is not a single set of laws. Not only are there different legal schools in Islam, but different countries incorporate different local traditions. This is a major problem with Rowan Williams' suggestion that Britain introduce Shariah into British courts. Which Shariah? From which country? Privileging any one form of Shariah over all others would be an illegitimate move by the British government."
Not if the form of Sharia law is specifically 'British', and in accordance with the rest of our laws, and the principles therein.
I tend to think about the art of the possible, and also the possibility of the reconciliation of differences with honour and justice. However truth, honour, and justice come first: cultural things after, and forever that first trinity's subordinate.