This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comment

← Sharia Law: neither equal nor free

Red Dog's Avatar Jump to comment 27 by Red Dog

Comment 6 by paulmcuk :

Comment 2 by Red Dog : An ignorant American trying to understand this, so in the UK you have arbitration boards that can take the place of traditional courts for certain communities (e.g. Muslims) and certain crimes? Is that correct?If I've got it right then why in the world do you do this? Is this some sop to multiculturalism? It seems like a terrible idea to me, IMO there should be one set of secular laws for everyone in any nation. I don't really see any advantage to these kinds of arbitration boards. I don't even see the logical rational for them.

I stand to be corrected on this but I think there are secular arbitration services too. The basic idea - which I think is a good one - is to have a way for people to avoid the expense and drama of going to court to settle minor disputes. However, it does by default legitimise the sharia and rabbinical courts (rabbinical courts being very common in the US I understand).

I forgot about arbitration courts. Thanks, at least I can see the logic now. So I'm guessing people are only supposed to use these courts if both sides agree, otherwise it goes to a more traditional court.

I still think having non-secular versions of this are a bad idea (I'm preaching to the choir for once). I suppose the argument is that for basic things the issues can be resolved within the community. But, especially given the nature of fundamentalist Islam and Judaism, the potential for women to end up getting the short end of things seems very great.

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 15:02:53 UTC | #944987