The Archbishop suggests that this would work in a similar manner to the Beth Din or religious courts used by Orthodox Jews for certain matters; this is permitted since UK law permits parties to settle Civil questions with a third-party arbiter provided that this is acceptable to both parties.
I am deeply concerned about such a proposal. Self evidently, it seems to violate the principle of equality before the law. It also propagates the belief that Muslims in the UK are somehow separate from the rest of us (they are not: they are British, they make a valuable contribution to Britain and they are welcome to live here). Thirdly, it is ridiculous to suggest that a religious arbiter can be neutral. Whilst religions can threaten to excommunicate---which they are entitled to do so---or apply psychological pressure such as disincentives for noncompliance such as the threat of damnation, etc. the requirement for mutual consent can never be sufficient to ensure justice; the imbalance of power is too great. And not to put too fine a point on things, I am certain that muslim women's rights groups will see significant problems with the inherently male bias in such courts.
Perhaps the Archbishop is trying to mend relations with the muslim community after last months outburst that from the Bishop of Rochester that Islamic Extremism has created no-go areas in Britain (have a laugh; read the Daily Mail version). If so, such outreach is laudible, but would be better directed towards calling for the highlighting.
And yes, he mentioned gay adoption. Again proliferating that ridiculous story...... perhaps this was simply another attempt at garnering media coverage for an institution that is frought by division and increasingly irrelevant to society at large.
5 comments:
All anybody seem to be reporting on is the Islamic law thing. I can't find anything on what he said about gay adoption. What did he say?
Okay... the gay adoption comment was rather *overemphasised* by the guardian in the context of the speech, I think... here's what he said:
"As such, this is not only an issue about Islam but about other faith groups, including Orthodox Judaism; and indeed it spills over into some of the questions which have surfaced sharply in the last twelve months about the right of religious believers in general to opt out of certain legal provisions - as in the problems around Roman Catholic adoption agencies which emerged in relation to the Sexual Orientation Regulations last spring.".
You can read the full transcript in the Guardian.
Oh Tiger! What is this whole liberal thing about? Can you not see that people aren't all the same? Do you really want more emphasis on the individual against the community? And what's with Britishness? Are you honestly advocating a strengthening of nationalism and the nation-state? I would have thought you would be able to see a little further beyond your own ideology.
I guess I don't fully understand the proposal. I saw on BBC news last night that he said that is would operate "in parallel" with the British legal system. Does that mean if I commit a crime against a muslim, I get put into a Sharia court against my will? I'm sure that isn't the proposal, but if it is, that can't be right.
Another possible proposal would be to say if both parties want the arbitration to be done under Sharia, then that's what will happen. This is already the case for a lot of business law stuff here, so I don't see the harm in that if both parties agree contractually (under British law!) to be bound by the result of a Sharia court. My guess is that's the proposal, but if it is, then why is this a controversy? Arbitration clauses are already common in the US, and they by definition don't concern anyone else but the parties involved...so why would Rowan or the press care about it?
Yeah...the Anglican church is screwed...it's very sad really.
It's very important to emphasise that this is for civil cases only, e.g. divorce, debt payment etc. and emphatically not for criminal cases. The UK law allows for such civil cases to be arbitrated outside a court by a neutral third party.
The question that I think is relevant is whether a religious court can ever be sufficiently neutral to satisfy the spirit of the law.
The story has been widely misrepresented on American (and probably British) television; the archbishop did not advocate criminal cases being settled in a religious manner. I guess the public has quite a tenuous grasp of the difference between civil and criminal courts :-(
Post a Comment