Sharia Courts in Britain (2 Viewers)

[Enteebee]

It's not like sexually discriminate results can be held by these arbitration courts... If one of them (for example) rules that a girl is a slave to the man or whatever, then that will not be binding as such courts must work within British law. If such a decision was enforced/accepted by the police then that wouldn't be a problem with the law, it would be the police not doing their job properly.

 

[Captain Hero]

No it's not cultural relativism. It is an attack on implicit defence of bourgeois justice as "pure justice" made by the "brilliant" Mr Pat Condell.

This 'bourgeois' justice isn't pure justice but it's far more equitable than Shari'a. I'll take the secular rule of law over religious rule of law anyday. I'm sure you would, too.

 

[Enteebee]

But this isn't sharia law any more than if I set up a tribunal in Australia for 'BOS law', got some chick to accept that the tribunal will be binding and then ruled that she was my property which I could use as I please... The police will not go get my property if she runs away from me and they will arrest me if I hit her. I can use whatever colourful language that I want in my deliberations but my decisions will only be binding insofar as such a decision could possibly be binding within the scope of Australian law.

 

[Captain Hero]

But this isn't sharia law any more than if I set up a tribunal in Australia for 'BOS law', got some chick to accept that the tribunal will be binding and then ruled that she was my property which I could use as I please... The police will not go get my property if she runs away from me and they will arrest me if I hit her. I can use whatever colourful language that I want in my deliberations but my decisions will only be binding insofar as such a decision could possibly be binding within the scope of Australian law.

But can't you see it's the FIRST STEP TO NAZISLAM :O.

TBH I'd rather not have courts for religious arbitration? Is that such a despicable opinion for me to hold?!

 

[Enteebee]

Well... it's not for religious arbitration. It's "arbitration" and it runs within the limits of the secular laws of the land, no matter how you want to dress it up.

 

[Captain Hero]

Well... it's not for religious arbitration. It's "arbitration" and it runs within the limits of the secular laws of the land, no matter how you want to dress it up.

This in and of itself does not dismiss my point that it's unnecessary. I think people are getting worked up about it in the 'they tuk r jerbs' sense, but I just don't see what place it has in their society other than a future matter of contention.

 

[Enteebee]

I thought you were all free market WOOO... Who cares if it's unnecessary? It's something they want to do and no one gets hurt.

 

[Captain Hero]

I thought you were all free market WOOO... Who cares if it's unnecessary? It's something they want to do and no one gets hurt.

Secretly: I don't have an opinion. SHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

 

[Garygaz]

I thought you were all free market WOOO... Who cares if it's unnecessary? It's something they want to do and no one gets hurt.

http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/09/...egally-binding-on-family-criminal-cases-2.htm

Have been instances where they have ruled over criminal cases. No one gets hurt? I beg to differ.

 

[Enteebee]

http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/09/...egally-binding-on-family-criminal-cases-2.htm

Have been instances where they have ruled over criminal cases. No one gets hurt? I beg to differ.

Who gets hurt and how? There are actually potential benefits tbh
Consider that someone who cares tonnes about their religion is more likely to abide by a ruling which has the backing of god than even fear for the state, where the state may fail to detect their crime. Look at OUR system's results when it comes to domestic violence, tbh it's pretty pathetic, in large part because abused women don't want to testify against their husband and some ethnic groups don't trust our justice system to be just.

 

[Garygaz]

Who gets hurt and how? There are actually potential benefits tbh
Consider that someone who cares tonnes about their religion is more likely to abide by a ruling which has the backing of god than even fear for the state, where the state may fail to detect their crime. Look at OUR system's results when it comes to domestic violence, tbh it's pretty pathetic, in large part because abused women don't want to testify against their husband and some ethnic groups don't trust our justice system to be just.

I think those flaws in the State system (such as the abused women statement you made) will just be further exemplified under the cultural values/teaching of Shari'ah law. It is pretty much common fact that these women can get beaten for the stupidest of things and they are brought up thinking this is normal. You should look up the laws of rape in some Muslim dominated countries, it often can be the women's fault. I agree with you in saying our system is flawed, but it is the lesser of two evils, so to speak.

 

[Zeitgeist308]

This 'bourgeois' justice isn't pure justice but it's far more equitable than Shari'a. I'll take the secular rule of law over religious rule of law anyday. I'm sure you would, too.

So what if it is "more equitable" than Sharia. Marxists like myself are not moralists. Whilst the two systems of "justice" may differ in form, their content is fundamentally the same, hence why it reactionary (in the era of capitalist "decadence") to line up behind the liberal, secular bourgeoisie against the conservative, theocratic Islamic clergy on the basis of "lesser evilism", a perspective forgeoin to Marxist "classism".

(Note other Marxists may disagree with this perspective. I am speaking from that of a Left-Communist.)