Ruthie’s Law
February 9, 2008 by Ruthie
Ruthie can’t help thinking that the many people have got the inverse side of the pointy twig in relation to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent comments about Sharia. The Archbishop should however perhaps be more mindful that his musings make headlines, and if there is a reason for him to resign it should be for his total absence of discretion.
Few bother to research the tenants of Sharia beyond an a vague knowledge of the various medieval style punishments. The Orthodox Jewish community have a court system, the Beth Din, which deals strictly with civil matters and then only with the consent of both parties.
It has always been the case that an agreement between two parties can be made binding by a court. Indeed courts tend to encourage parties to make their own agreements. It saves court time and money, and there is a perception that parties are likely to be more willingly compliant with an agreement that they themselves have drawn up, rather than one imposed by the court after (a usually unpleasant and traumatic) trial.
Ironically since lawyers are usually the people who draft consent orders, they are effectively the de facto arbiters of many disputes.
So if parties are willing to submit themselves to the authority of their Vicar/Imam/Rabbi/Best Friend a consent order can be produced which can then be endorsed and made binding in a civil court. Ruthie thinks in principle there is no reason why an Islamic Court should not operate in the same way as the Beth Din, on the understanding that both sides give informed consent for their dispute to be heard by the court and that ultimate authority remains vested in the English legal system.
Ruthie is quite willing to make herself available to sit on any disputes: certainly VM seems to have no diffculty in submitting to her authority.
I think that there is one important difference between the Jewish and Islamic communities: integration. Almost all Jews in the UK accept the primacy of English law in letter and spirit. Jews, while possessing a distinct culture are fully embedded in English culture and values too.
That seems to be less so for the Muslim communities perhaps because there are significant numbers of immigrants from the Indian subcontinent arriving here. That’s not a bad thing per se but many bring different values and an intolerance of English values. That’s a generalisation I’ll accept but it is sufficiently true to make comparisons with other subgroups inapt.
I have the feeling that many in the Muslim community would wish Sharia law to replace and not augment English law because of the lack of acceptance of local law.
Matthew Parris has an excellent commentary in the Times on this matter today. He comments that there is a danger that if Sharia courts exist many people (in particular women) whilst theoretically consenting, may in fact feel compelled to use them.
Liadnan amplifies these points in an excellent post.
Sharia courts can and do already operate under the Arbitration Act (which is how the Beth Din works in that part of what it does). Williams seems to want something more.
Thanks for that. At bar school I was always taught to communicate clearly and simply. I fear that much of the misunderstanding around this issue stems from Dr. Williams inability to do just that. Memo to self: keep it simple, stupid…
Absolutely correct on all points, Ruthie.
The Archbishop has brought this on himself in the way her set his stall out - in fact he admits the same in his subsequent explanation (with the sincerity lacking in all politicians).
You are also right about how Sharia Councils may work as a venue for arbitration. I can see the case for this - only if the parties consent freely. I can’t see how Sharia Councils could replace the law of the land - I don’t think that’s what Williams was saying (but who knows - his words weren’t exactly transparent). Any Sharia Council would have to abide by the rules of natural justice.
A lot of nonsense has been written about this speech by some commentators who have (perhaps deliberately) misunderstood what was said beecause they have an axe to grind about religion.
I’m not an Anglican by the way.