a rather curious idea
Feb. 7th, 2008 05:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
winterbadgerhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7233335.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6190080.stm
Basically, the Archbishop of Canterbury has remarked that he thinks it is inevitable that some form of alternate Islamic courts will develop in the UK.
Which sounds as crazy as his pronouncements usually do, until one realises that such things already exist (officially and unofficially) for other religious and ethnic groups.
Even here in the US, we have such things. They are not ethnically or religiously based (or maybe there are some, and I just haven't heard of them). But who among us hasn't during some benighted hour of a long, rainy winter afternoon when you have read all the books and played all the games and taken all the naps one possibly can, turned on the television and watched, though wincingly, an episode of "The Peoples' Court" or one of its many spin-offs? In that comic-opera kingdom, the participants are real people bringing real suits which, for who knows what consideration, they have agreed to accept as legally binding whatever decision the superannuated old coot on the bench hands down (after the commercial break!)
And plenty of people have taken to moving civil cases from the clogged public courts system to binding arbitration.
So if people are willing to voluntarily agree to submit a civil case to the jurisdiction of an alternate authority, why not let them? I think one would have to draw the line and leave jurisdiction of all criminal cases to the conventional civil authority. Police have enough trouble enforcing one set of laws, and while one could then argue for another development--alternate police forces--that way surely lies madness, with issues of jurisdiction making situations totally unwieldy.
My only concern is, what does this do to the fabric of society? If there are separate court systems for dealing with issues within a subset of the community, is that one more wall between that subset and the rest of the community, making an already existing division greater? One thing I do know from my own experience studying Judaism, the laws of the Torah by which Jews voluntarily bind themselves have, intentionally in most case, created huge rifts between them and the community around them. The idea for Jews is to prevent the dreaded assimilation that will over time destroy the separateness of the People of Israel, but it is hard to deny that the same prohibitions against (effectively) not only worshiping but eating and living and marrying with the larger community have done much to fuel the confusion, suspicion, and hatred with which Jews have traditionally been seen by the societies in which they lived. Some of the advocates of these new courts say that they will make it easier for people to live in the UK and soothe sectarian passions. But will they not also *enhance* separation and exclusion/division? Something about this gives me an uneasy feeling...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7233335.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6190080.stm
Basically, the Archbishop of Canterbury has remarked that he thinks it is inevitable that some form of alternate Islamic courts will develop in the UK.
Which sounds as crazy as his pronouncements usually do, until one realises that such things already exist (officially and unofficially) for other religious and ethnic groups.
Even here in the US, we have such things. They are not ethnically or religiously based (or maybe there are some, and I just haven't heard of them). But who among us hasn't during some benighted hour of a long, rainy winter afternoon when you have read all the books and played all the games and taken all the naps one possibly can, turned on the television and watched, though wincingly, an episode of "The Peoples' Court" or one of its many spin-offs? In that comic-opera kingdom, the participants are real people bringing real suits which, for who knows what consideration, they have agreed to accept as legally binding whatever decision the superannuated old coot on the bench hands down (after the commercial break!)
And plenty of people have taken to moving civil cases from the clogged public courts system to binding arbitration.
So if people are willing to voluntarily agree to submit a civil case to the jurisdiction of an alternate authority, why not let them? I think one would have to draw the line and leave jurisdiction of all criminal cases to the conventional civil authority. Police have enough trouble enforcing one set of laws, and while one could then argue for another development--alternate police forces--that way surely lies madness, with issues of jurisdiction making situations totally unwieldy.
My only concern is, what does this do to the fabric of society? If there are separate court systems for dealing with issues within a subset of the community, is that one more wall between that subset and the rest of the community, making an already existing division greater? One thing I do know from my own experience studying Judaism, the laws of the Torah by which Jews voluntarily bind themselves have, intentionally in most case, created huge rifts between them and the community around them. The idea for Jews is to prevent the dreaded assimilation that will over time destroy the separateness of the People of Israel, but it is hard to deny that the same prohibitions against (effectively) not only worshiping but eating and living and marrying with the larger community have done much to fuel the confusion, suspicion, and hatred with which Jews have traditionally been seen by the societies in which they lived. Some of the advocates of these new courts say that they will make it easier for people to live in the UK and soothe sectarian passions. But will they not also *enhance* separation and exclusion/division? Something about this gives me an uneasy feeling...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-02-08 03:15 am (UTC)This was discussed in a Canadian context a few years ago, and the major issue seemed to be that women's rights (and the rights of women under the guardianship of their fathers, in particular) were not generally equally respected in Islamic traditions. There is also the question of defining just what gets handled by a religious court, and what doesn't -- does apostasy count as a crime punishable by a sharia court? How does that reconcile with "freedom of religion"? Here is a BBC story from 2004 on the issue.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-08 04:44 pm (UTC)As to what would be handled, that would be defined and agreed upon during the establishment of such courts. The regular national legal system has to delegate authority to such courts, or their decisions have no legal standing. And while the decisions of such courts may be based on a different ethnic or religious tradition, they can't violate the laws of the state. Again, I don't think that such courts ought to be allowed to handle criminal cases, only civil cases. Apostasy is an act; the only reason it can be brought up in a court is if it is a crime or if it has pertinence to a dispute. If someone abjured their faith, but they continued to claim the right of membership in corporation (like a synagogue or the governing body of a church or mosque), then I would think that a civil action could be brought.
After all, this isn't about different communities being able to enact their own LAWS. It's about communities being able to resolve disputes over the law in their own fashion.