Chief Justice Says Sharia Law Could Have UK Role
I don't mean to sound overly alarmist, but yesterday's speech by Britain's most senior judge, the chief justice Lord Phillips, delivered to the London Muslim Council, seems like a step in the wrong direction. Phillips noted:
"It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law. Those who, in this country, are in dispute as to their respective rights are free to subject that dispute to the mediation of a chosen person, or to agree that the dispute shall be resolved by a chosen arbitrator or arbitrators."Hmmm. Lord Phillips was quick to add that although sharia law's principles could be used in mediation, this would still be subject to the "jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts". But isn't sharia law ultimately a law unto itself, a law that claims its authority on the will of Allah? In the minds of those who revere it, can it really be "subject" to the "jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts"? Equally troubling is Lord Phillips' reflection that advocating the embrace of sharia law in the context of family disputes is not radical. When was the last time a woman had equal treatment in such cases? Read the BBC or the Guardian report.
Cal Thomas classifies the speech as surrender.
Comments
The Thomas article is quite sensationalist, a surreal read full of non-sequitur. "Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law." - isn't that all that's happening here?
This feels parallel to saying that school vouchers establish religion.
Posted by: Erik Haugen | July 9, 2008 01:45 PM
Erik,
I agree that Thomas goes a bit over the top. But some concern is probably warranted, right? If for no other reason than sharia law principles are inherently sexist.
Posted by: Alex Chediak | July 9, 2008 02:37 PM
But isn't sharia law ultimately a law unto itself, a law that claims its authority on the will of Allah? In the minds of those who revere it, can it really be "subject" to the "jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts"?
Isn't Biblical law (commandments, injunctions, etc.) ultimately a law unto itself, a law that claims its authority on the will of God? In the minds of those who revere it, can it really be "subject" to the "jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts"?
Posted by: Peter | July 11, 2008 12:26 AM
Peter,
Perhaps so, but Christians have not asked for any special treatment, as it seems the London Muslim Council is seeking. Right?
Posted by: Alex Chediak | July 14, 2008 01:56 AM
Perhaps so, but Christians have not asked for any special treatment, as it seems the London Muslim Council is seeking. Right?
That comparison doesn't really make sense in a country where Christianity is the official state religion.
What the Justice is talking about sounds like the religious arbitration tribunals that the province of Ontario authorized beginning in 1991. Roman Catholics (who certainly consider themselves Christians) were among the first to have these, along with Orthodox Jews and aboriginal groups; but after Muslims applied for the same treatment in 2004, the Ontario government decided to abolish the system for all religious groups. Some information about it here.
Also, as far as I know, in those majority-Muslim countries where elements of sharia are used in marriage and family law (such as Indonesia, Egypt, and Iran), it doesn't apply to Christians, who have their own court systems for the purpose of adjudicating such matters. In terms of "special treatment", they go much further than what the Justice was talking about for England and Wales.
But back to your original objection: In your own mind, can God's laws really be "subject" to the "jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts"?
Posted by: Peter | July 15, 2008 01:22 AM