Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Fang
This clause here should basically eliminate any Muslim courts.
(a) the object of arbitration is to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal without unnecessary delay or expense;
Fair and impartial means that women should be given equal rights.
The question then becomes, when it is demonstrated that these Islamic courts have failed to act impartially, then what actions should be taken. What about when it is found the decisions made by the Islamic court were enforced against the will of those involved, and that people were forced by intimidation to obey the decisions of the Islamic court?
As I pointed out, if any decision by an arbiter does not comply with the law then it is invalid, worthless, and can either be completely ignored or challenged in the Courts. If the court found that any arbitration body was acting beyond their powers or outside the law, that body would be open to both legal sanctions and civil action by any aggrieved party. They have no power of enforcement and participation is voluntary. A persons participation does not deny or invalidate their rights under English Law, which remains supreme.
As for all this nudge and wink stuff about intimidation, I would remind you that the only time a criminal case has been heard without a Jury was the recent example of a case concerning a diamond robbery. This happened because of repeated attempts to intimidate or "knoble" the jury. The defendants were all white Londoners.
Not a Muslim in sight.
