1. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #255178 by Rachel Holmes on September 27, 2008 at 2:17 am

Steve,

I discussed this with Al and Bonzai on another thread and came to pretty much the same conclusion that you do in 255172. A comment by Bonzai made me alter my position and take some action.

I've written to my MP to suggest that any set of rules that is discriminatory (sexist, racist, whatever) should be excluded from the remit of the Arbitration Act 1996.

Even if a woman is perfectly happy to submit herself to a discriminatory set of arbitration rules, the fact is that the arbitration panel's decision is enforceable by the court. To my mind, by offering that back up (even if it is not needed), English law gives the impression that discrimination is OK.

Is this really what we want? In our desire to act fairly towards the Muslim community, are we willing to allow injustice to be perpetrated against its female members? And for its bigoted members to be given a message that their misogyny is dandy?

EDIT: The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain is running a day-long conference on political Islam, Shariah and civil society on 10 October. THe event is linked on the RD.net homepage. It's here: http://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/indexEvents.html . I'll be going.

2. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254627 by Rachel Holmes on September 26, 2008 at 2:54 am

Sargeist,

My mother is a retired GP. In her view, there absolutely is abortion on demand in the UK. The legal hurdles are interpreted so broadly as to be meaningless.

3. When Atheists Attack

Comment #254287 by Rachel Holmes on September 25, 2008 at 2:17 pm

I not only know I am an insufferable prig, I revel in it.

LOLtastic, Steve!

4. When Atheists Attack

Comment #254278 by Rachel Holmes on September 25, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Thank you Quetz. :-)

5. When Atheists Attack

Comment #254225 by Rachel Holmes on September 25, 2008 at 1:14 pm

I'm onto the research. I'm keen to keep my head and shoulders in close proximity to one another.

6. When Atheists Attack

Comment #254204 by Rachel Holmes on September 25, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Fanusi,

I tend to think that the nice religious guys are the ones that brush the nasty scriptural stuff under the carpet, or at least take a more nuanced approach to reading it. So I hear what you're saying.

I suspect some moderates would keep their heads down and say nothing, if surrounded by nastier, more literalist adherents. But there are some who do, right now, fight for women's rights and gay rights, knowing that this makes them pariahs in parts of their community. And they keep their religious label while doing so.

OK, so to me, being a gay Muslim or Christian is like being a turkey voting for Christmas. Still, I have to respect these people for trying to wrestle back words like "Christian" and "Muslim" from the hateful bastards who make the headlines.

7. When Atheists Attack

Comment #254174 by Rachel Holmes on September 25, 2008 at 12:25 pm

If the alien looked anything like the dude in your avatar, Ishruul, the President would be wise to say yes.

8. When Atheists Attack

Comment #254166 by Rachel Holmes on September 25, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Fanusi,

I know you don't think all Muslims are scimitar-wielding psychopaths. I'm also aware that the Qur'an is - shall we say - less than friendly towards homosexuals. The Bible's none too cuddly on that score either.

I just like to point out the good guys every now and then.

9. When Atheists Attack

Comment #254160 by Rachel Holmes on September 25, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Thank you, Steve!

10. When Atheists Attack

Comment #254149 by Rachel Holmes on September 25, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Some Muslims are vile to gays. At Pride in (I think) Latvia couple of years ago, Christians threw excrement at the marchers. These religious gits need to be faced down with relentless courage.

On the other hand, my (female) fiancee and I have been invited to the wedding of a Muslim couple next weekend. I'm not anticipating getting stoned. In either sense of the word.

11. Christian review of the Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #254111 by Rachel Holmes on September 25, 2008 at 11:19 am

True enough, Steve. I have a vile cold and am feeling ill-disposed towards the world at the moment.

I'm sure I'd be much nicer if I could breathe through my nose without inadvertently whistling something by Stockhausen. :-(

12. Christian review of the Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #254108 by Rachel Holmes on September 25, 2008 at 11:11 am

Steve,

I don't have that impression of the Professor either. I just wondered whether the author had any sneaky motivation for omitting the details.

13. Christian review of the Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #254105 by Rachel Holmes on September 25, 2008 at 11:06 am

Oh well, perhaps I should start giving people the benefit of the doubt a little more. Though it will be difficult to overlook their flaws if they start wearing body-hugging lycra catsuits.

14. Christian review of the Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #254101 by Rachel Holmes on September 25, 2008 at 11:02 am

Thanks for clarifying that, Richard.

Did anyone else get the impression from the article that "Dawkins won" meant that his work had been included in the book? Almost as though the author, by leaving out the details, wanted readers to think that "arch-villain" Dawkins was being petulant, in a sort of "I'll only write your introduction if you include some of my work in it, nyer nyer" manner?

Perhaps it is just my cynical mind.

15. Christian review of the Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #254083 by Rachel Holmes on September 25, 2008 at 10:11 am

That's right Vaal. My cinematic research suggests that, in the future, we will all be wearing body-hugging lycra catsuits.

Any idea what effect this will have on public speaking?

EDIT: I'm guessing, for starters, that quite a lot of people will insist on using a large lectern.

16. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #253110 by Rachel Holmes on September 24, 2008 at 5:00 am

Hi Vaal,

I've replied. If more people want to see the letter, I'll post it here.

Fanusi,

Good point. I think I'll let you take on that one - you know more about it than I do. You can find out who your local MP is by going to www.parliament.uk, clicking on "MPs and Lords", then selecting the "Members of Parliament by constituency" option. Enter your postcode and the search engine finds your MP.

17. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #253094 by Rachel Holmes on September 24, 2008 at 4:44 am

Good to hear you're involved, Fanusi. Although consciousness-raising is also essential (and whilst I may not always agree with you, I have learned a lot from you), I think that if we can lobby to prevent Shariah encroaching into English law, that's got to help as well. Especially if militant Muslims are making sure their voices are heard in Westminster.

In my letter, I took two tacks:

- Shariah law is sexist. Arbitration decisions can be enforced by the courts. When English courts agree to enforce discriminatory judgments, they are impliedly endorsing sexism. This is not a message that the British establishment should be sending out;

- one aim of arbitration is to give parties the opportunity to choose a forum and set of rules for resolving their disputes. Since Muslim women who use the Shariah courts will most likely be doing so under pressure, Shariah-based arbitrations defeat the aim of arbitration.

Incidentally, I'm relieved to hear that your father was not hurt the other day. Also, congratulations on giving up smoking. I gave up about 7 years ago. Not easy.

18. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #253084 by Rachel Holmes on September 24, 2008 at 4:34 am

I doubt if anyone is still looking at this thread, but hey, my post fits best here.

I mentioned that I was going to write to my MP about Shariah law being applied in arbitration. I have now done so. If anyone wants to read the letter, please PM me.

I understand that Vaal has written to various Ministers about Islam. Is anyone else engaging in the political process on the subject? It would be nice to think that those who are constantly warning us that Islam is poised to destroy Western civilisation are doing more than crying doom on internet message boards...

19. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #249085 by Rachel Holmes on September 17, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Quetzalcoatl,

You kick people? Does that mean you're not much of a gymnast, but you're a very fast runner?

20. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #249078 by Rachel Holmes on September 17, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Bonzai, perhaps now it's been brought to everyone's attention, the laws can be tightened. When I get back from holiday, I'll be writing to my MP to suggest this.

TWP, I would be very impressed. I never got much further than the cartwheel, myself.

21. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #249071 by Rachel Holmes on September 17, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Just don't tell them, Sciros. Keep them pedalling on that generator!

Hope you get your power back soon.

22. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #249069 by Rachel Holmes on September 17, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Bonzai,

I think there's a difference between whether the decision itself is allowed under English law and whether the arbiration process constitutes a "fair trial".

This comes back to something else I wrote earlier, to which i don't know the answer.

The Human Rights Act 1998 requires "public authorities" to act in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights. The definition of "public authority" includes private bodies carrying out public functions. I don't know whether an arbitration panel would fall within that definition. (There have been all kinds of cases on what exactly it covers.) However, if it does, then the arbiration will have to respect each party's right to a fair trial, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention.

23. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #249066 by Rachel Holmes on September 17, 2008 at 1:57 pm

I mastered the art of the double back flip in gymnastics class some 10 years ago.

Can we get video proof on YouTube?

Though not while you're stil recuperating, obviously.

24. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #249061 by Rachel Holmes on September 17, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Apathy,

I don't think that current discrimination laws apply to the way an arbitration tribunal makes its decisions, not least because - at least in theory - the parties are voluntarily submitting to its jurisdiction, in full knowledge of the rules it will apply.

If the tribunal is not acting unlawfully in making the decision, then there is no reason for the court to refuse to uphold it, however much the presiding judge dislikes it. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the 1996 Act only allows arbitration decisions to be enforced with the leave of the court, so there is some scope there for a judge to find out just how voluntary the whole process was. Whether they would do this in a case involving a Muslim couple, I don't know. Sadly, I suspect not.

Believe me, I would love someone to come along and tell me I'm wrong about this.

25. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #249055 by Rachel Holmes on September 17, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Al,

Thanks for telling me what I'm missing. I'm not sure if that makes it easier or tougher to resist the click.

Dominic Grieve may consider it to be against the law for courts to enforce such tribunal decisions, but unless there is something in the law that expressly prohibits the distribution of assets in that way, he's mistaken. To my knowledge, there is no such law.

He also misunderstands arbitration, if he considers that these Shariah tribunals are superseding English law.

I stress that I loathe the sexist crap these tribunals perpetrate, but I am eager to set the record straight when it comes to assessing the constitutional implication of their existence.

26. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #249051 by Rachel Holmes on September 17, 2008 at 1:32 pm

To clarify: I'm asking for the authority that it is contrary to English law for an arbitration tribunal to make the award you mention.

It goes without saying that it is contrary to our sense of fairness but that's rather different.

27. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #249047 by Rachel Holmes on September 17, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Now Shariah is superior to British law, as the inheritance rulings for 1/2 a man's inheritance to a woman, contravenes British inheritance law,

Can you point me to the authority for that?

By the way, I'm congratulating myself for not clicking your goat link on another thread. Superhuman self-control required there.

28. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248352 by Rachel Holmes on September 16, 2008 at 5:02 am

Thanks for posting that, epeeist. Good article.

29. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248312 by Rachel Holmes on September 16, 2008 at 3:51 am

Crap!

You have to help me, MusicMan!

30. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248307 by Rachel Holmes on September 16, 2008 at 3:45 am

I need lessons on harmony and counterpoint, Laurie.

All I can remember is "no consecutive 5ths" and "don't double your thirds".

*sighs*

31. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248297 by Rachel Holmes on September 16, 2008 at 3:32 am

But we also get deference in the British courts as well. Here is a report from my local paper - http://www.tamesideadvertiser.co.uk/news/s/1026293_savage_attack_on_boy_by_imam


Grrrrrrrrrr!!!

32. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248282 by Rachel Holmes on September 16, 2008 at 3:09 am

Epeeist,

I'd have to look up the intestacy rules to see if they can be varied. I'm happy to do that, though it may not be today. I absolutely share your concern about arbitration being used in domestic violence cases. Anyone know what tack the police/CPS take when deciding whether to prosecute in such cases?

ssssss,

Thanks for your contribution. Do you have the answer to epeeist's question re the ECHR? I know that the Human Rights Act 1998 requires the court to interpret laws in a way that is compatible with the ECHR, insofar as that is possible. My guess is that this will come into play if the court looks at procedural isues when deciding whether or not to grant leave for an arbitration decision to be enforced.

Would the arbitration panel be deemed to be a "public authority" for the purpose of the Human Rights Act (thus requiring it to act in accord with the ECHR and Strasbourg jurisprudence)? If so, what effect does this have on its rulings? Since there is no freestanding right to equality in the ECHR (though the Convention requires rights to be applied equally), I imagine it may have limited effect in certain types of case, even if it does apply to arbitration proceedings.

The more I look at this, the more complicated it seems to become!

EDIT: Sorry, sssss, just re-read your post and realised you're not an English lawyer so won't know about the Human Rights Act stuff. Like I say, I'm happy to resarch this, but I have quite a lot of work to do today, before I sod off to Portugal on Thursday.

33. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248243 by Rachel Holmes on September 16, 2008 at 1:05 am

Bonzai,

Do you know the details of what happened in Ontario? Did the religious courts have special rights which were simply removed, putting religious people on the same footing as everyone else? That, I think, is fair and easy.

To get the same effect here, the UK were would need to exclude religious courts from the remit of the Arbitration Act 1996. At the moment, anyone can use the Arbitration Act 1996 to settle disputes, using whatever rules they like (provided they are not contrary to the laws of England and Wales).

Concepts of equality aside, prohibiting arbitration according to religious codes would be a nightmare, both in terms of legislative drafting and in policing.

The 1996 Act gives parties a right to appeal an arbitrator's decision on a number of grounds, including that the tribunal was unfair or the way in which the decision was procured was contrary to public policy. Which is great, though it doesn't address the problem that a party may be under a lot of pressure to accept the tribunal's decision.

The Act also requires the court to give leave for the arbitration decision to be enforced (if the parties don't comply of their own accord). I don't know what the court looks at when deciding whether or not to grant leave, but it seems that there is scope there for the court to look at issues such as procedural fairness.

I fear that I may come across as a legal nerd to those reading. (If the cap fits, eh?) Still, if I am going to write to my MP about my concerns over Sharia courts (which I plan to do) and I want him to do more than snort and chuck my letter in the bin, I'm going to need something more substantive than "Bah! Bad Muslims! It shouldn't be allowed!"

34. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248034 by Rachel Holmes on September 15, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Prankster,

Turning the UK into a muslim state aside, isn't sharia law and the courts something that runs alongside English law, and is a source for arbitration, not a replacement for the uk judicial system?

I understood that was the case and hasn't a thread about this been done before?

Yes and yes.

35. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247959 by Rachel Holmes on September 15, 2008 at 10:54 am

However, being as soft as the virgins would be a bit of a letdown for a heterosexual male :-)

Hahahaha!

And how do you get hard when your cock is at King's Cross station and the rest of you is in several pieces at Marylebone?

Could be Poe.

If you find out more about the inheritance case, can you post it here? I'd be up for writing to my MP.

36. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247955 by Rachel Holmes on September 15, 2008 at 10:39 am

My god, Pickwick. It's soft porn for Muslims.

Not much for straight women to look forward to, though.

37. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247938 by Rachel Holmes on September 15, 2008 at 10:00 am

It seems we may have found agreement.

You seem particularly vehement today, Al. Something happened? Is it those transcripts you mentioned?

I would be interested in reading them, by the way. It'll do my blood pressure no good, but I like to live on the edge and the weather's useless for skydiving at the moment.

Regarding Muslim communities not policing/standing up to extremism: do you have any thoughts on how to tackle that? Is it motivated primarily by fear, by their sense of Muslim identity, or what? I wonder if any research has been done on what motivates people to let these things slide in their own communities. That infomation might give us an idea how to combat inertia.

38. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247923 by Rachel Holmes on September 15, 2008 at 9:32 am

Al,

So just the Jewish and Muslim courts. Everyone else can carry on as usual?

How do you alienate people like the 7/7 bombers? I certainly don't want THEM excluded, ohhh no. Or the ones who hold the signs demanding beheadings for those that insult islam. Better keep them happy so they don't do something extreme like blow up the underground.

Now now, Al. Behave yourself. You know perfectly well I wasn't talking about people of their ilk. It hardly takes a great leap of imagination to suppose that if Parliament were to exclude a whole demographic group based on the behaviour of its resident nutters, it might cause resentment among people who were previously well-disposed towards British society.

Surely there is at least a risk that your suggestion would have that effect?

EDIT: Or do you think that the only people who would want to use these courts are likely to be nutters anyway, and the non-nutty Muslims would be relieved to know they coudn't be pressurised into using them? Layla's account of what happened in Canada suggest that this might be the case...

39. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247917 by Rachel Holmes on September 15, 2008 at 9:22 am

Peace/Nairb,

I'll admit that inheritance isn't my area. :-) Wills can be contested, by "disappointed relatives" (there is a law that allows this). They may also be contested on the grounds that the testator lacked capacity or that there is some ambiguity in the drafting of the Will.

I don't know how the Sharia court came to their inheritance conclusion either, Nairb. I'd also need to now a lot more about criminal law to understand the relationship between the arbitrators and the police on the domestic violence cases. Personally, I'd like to see the CPS throw the book at those scumbag husbands. (See - I do have an inner Daily Mail reader! Really I do!)

40. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247914 by Rachel Holmes on September 15, 2008 at 9:16 am

Do you suggest that Sharia courts should be singled out for exclusion from arbitration, Al?

If so, could that not cause at least as many problems as it solves, by alienating Muslims who feel benignly towards the UK?

If not, then what?

I'm genuinely interested in this conversation; I just don't see any quick and easy solutions.

41. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247902 by Rachel Holmes on September 15, 2008 at 8:56 am

Nairb,

Arbitration cannot override in areas where English law prescribes a solution. So, for instance, an arbiration tribunal cannot legally divorce a couple. Only the court can do that.

Whilst there are rules on inheritance, they do not deal with the distribution of assets, except in the case of intestacy. I am not sure if the intestacy rules can be overruled by agreement between the deceased's relatives.

Any clearer?

EDIT: I'm now waiting for some expert on arbitration law to turn up and tell me that there has been some major legal upheaval. If it happens, I will eat my word. And possibly a slice of cake.

42. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247898 by Rachel Holmes on September 15, 2008 at 8:51 am

Al,

There has been no compromise - that is my point. The Muslim Councils have realised that they can use the Arbitration Act 1996 and are now doing so.

It would require new legislation to remove that right: a right which has existed since the 1996 Act came into force.

Nothing has been conceded to them that has not been conceded to any group that can create rules that meet the requirements of English arbitration law.

If there had been any such concession, your slippery slope phraseology would have merit. But there hasn't.

43. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247888 by Rachel Holmes on September 15, 2008 at 8:38 am

No, al, There's a difference. Arbitration judgments are enforceable by the High Court.

Wearing the hijab isn't. Not that I like the idea of women having so little say in what they wear. I deplore it. Moreover, if a woman wears the hijab under threat of physical violence, then the law does have a right to step in.

To go back to your bar analogy: it's one thing if two people have a dispute in the corner and a third person comes up with a solution I find unfair. It's another thing if that third person asks me to enforce that decision for them. In the latter case, I'll want to know that the parties were perfectly happy to use the resolution procedure.

EDITED.

44. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247887 by Rachel Holmes on September 15, 2008 at 8:34 am

Ah, you're welcome, PBUM.

When it comes to legal matters, I like to look behind the headlines to see what's really happened.

In this case, the answer is "bugger all".

45. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247876 by Rachel Holmes on September 15, 2008 at 8:22 am

But Britain hasn't allowed anything that was not already allowed.

Of course I fear that women will be forced into accepting unfair judgments (and the article shows this fear to be well-founded). At the same time, it pisses me off that the article gives the impression that the law has changed to allow something that has not been allowed before.

It hasn't.

Britain has NOT suddenly endorsed Sharia courts.

This is not a sign of Britain's Government doling out special legal privileges to Muslims. The Government has no constitutional power to make such a gift, in any event.

So those of you who would like to make out that this is some sort of creeping Shariaisation of the UK are - not to put too fine a point on it - wrong.

As I said before, the better question is how to make sure that parties using arbitation (whether under Sharia principles, halacha or whatever) are doing so voluntarily.

46. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247732 by Rachel Holmes on September 15, 2008 at 1:33 am

My research so far:

The legal change in 2007 that allowed Sharia law to be used in arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1996 is....

...absolutely fucking nowhere.

No change, no "quiet sanctioning" of these courts. Happy to be corrected, but it appears that the Muslims simply figured out that their proceedings could fall within the framework of the Arbitration Act 1996 and offered this as a service.

Use of the Arbiration Act remains voluntary. Judgments given by an arbitrator are, however, enforceable by the High Court. But the High Court cannot enforce anything that is contrary to English law.

It seems to me that the question is not so much whether Muslims should be able to make use of the Arbitration Act 1996, but how you ensure that parties using that procedure are doing so of their own free will and not under duress.

I would add this, though. It has been (rightly) argued that if a Muslim couple use arbitration to determine their divorce settlement, the woman will be coerced into accepting something patently unfair.

Since divorce settlements can be negotiated, the same problem is likely to apply to settlement proceedings carried out at court.

47. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247325 by Rachel Holmes on September 14, 2008 at 10:11 am

Oh great. Fantastic.

Looks like I was wrong in my interpretation of Lord Phillips' speech earlier this year.

When I've got time, I'll look into the background to this.

Worrying indeed.

48. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240138 by Rachel Holmes on August 31, 2008 at 12:47 am

Fanusi, your own morals are relative. They are relative to the question of what supports life versus what destroys it (per post 451).

Great.

Mine too. And, as I've said, I'm willing to stand up for them.

However, if you want me to accept that your (and my) morals are absolute, then you'll need to prove that your criteria for judging good and evil are the right criteria.

If you can do that without going circular, I'll be convinced. And impressed.

49. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239858 by Rachel Holmes on August 30, 2008 at 1:18 pm

When you say that there are no moral absolutes you aren't arguing for a different moral system, you are arguing that no moral system is valid.

What do you mean by valid? I hold my values passionately; I would fight and have fought for them (metaphorically: when you're 5' tall and weigh 47kilos, you tend to avoid punch-ups). Nevertheless, I recognise that they are mine. They are not woven into the very fabric of the universe as objective moral laws.

But I don't consider them any the less valid for that.

50. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239401 by Rachel Holmes on August 29, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Gets my vote, decius.