Britain: Religion is not an excuse for child abuse

[Mikey]

I'm only basing that on the posts of some of our English members here in the politics forum.

[Reliant121]

Put it this way.

They were considering introducing 2 law schemes, one for the normal people, and one for muslims. they considered bringing in a paralleled Shia law scheme to better suit the muslim community.

[Graham Kennedy]

They really didn't, you know. If you look at what was actually said, they said that when couples go to arbitration to settle a dispute like a divorce, they might take into account sharia law if both parties agreed to it. But if they didn't, then it's off to court and proper laws.

This is already done with Jewish people in the UK.

But it did make a lovely scare story in the Daily Mail, whose editorial policy is that every front page story must leave readers either frightened or angry.

[Granitehewer]

gotta love sensationalism and increasing your market base via hysteria-induction and irrational moral panic orientated towards out-groups.....

[Reliant121]

I dont read the daily mail. I watch BBC news.

I'll concede. Don't blame me for watching the news.

[thelordharry]

They really didn't, you know. If you look at what was actually said, they said that when couples go to arbitration to settle a dispute like a divorce, they might take into account sharia law if both parties agreed to it. But if they didn't, then it's off to court and proper laws.

This is already done with Jewish people in the UK.

But it did make a lovely scare story in the Daily Mail, whose editorial policy is that every front page story must leave readers either frightened or angry.

Ah The Daily Mail. Purveyors of tabloid anger porn since the 80's

[Mikey]

I hope this isn't necessary; but just so it's clear that I haven't said anything here based on the specific religion in the topic of this thread, and that I'm not an advocate of any double standard, I will say it:

This is already done with Jewish people in the UK.

How do you guys let that happen? The law of the land is the law of the land. It SHOULD only apply to secular matters anyway, so why does there need to be ANY accomodation in the law for ANY religious group at all?

[kostmayer]

If both parties agree to it, why shouldn't it happen?

[Sionnach Glic]

Mikey: It's not a legal thing, it's an informal thing. No different than if you and I decided to settle a dispute without getting the authorities involved. As long as the ruling doesn't break any laws of the country it's fiune.
Hell, if I wanted to I could go and set up my own court in my garden and dispense justice with the All Knowing Magic 8 Ball. As long as both parties agree to abide by my rulings, there's nothing against it.

Judge Rochey: "Should the defendent be forced to pay for the damages to the plaintiff's car? "
All Knowing 8 Ball: "Ask again later."
Judge Rochey: "Court adjourned!"

[Captain Seafort]

Plus it only applies to civil law. Criminal law is still the sole province of the proper courts.

[Mikey]

Plus it only applies to civil law. Criminal law is still the sole province of the proper courts.

That makes more sense, but if I were married to a Jewish woman both civilly and religiously, I'd assume that a Bet Din wouldn't be able to satisfactorily handle a divorce as far as the civil union.

[Captain Seafort]

If both parties were willing to use a Bet Din as their preferred means of settling disputes, and abide by its ruling, then I don't see why not. It's certainly my understanding that it would be permissable.

[Mikey]

I guess. However, I could foresee all sorts of tax/property/etc. issues if there was no concurrent state-official legal proceeding.