Ethnic and religious courts are gaining ground in the UK. Will this lead to different justice for different people?

Can we have a serious and sensible discussion about this?

It would be nice if we could.
I don't think it's such a big deal if there is some oversight of them. One guy on the radio the other day, talking about the Somalian community in south east London who have an islamic court, (or Gah) said that it was a way of keeping the youth in check. That sounds OK to me if it works - elders in the community could be more effective than the police.
But when I heard him say that I thought ''keeping the women in check too?''
You can't really stop it, so I'd say try to work with it.
They have aboriginal courts in Australia in some places, and they seem to work there.

Ok, societal restraints placed on the younger members of a community, by that community, can and do work well, if it is done with the good of all in mind. A community should be there to help keep the kids from causing trouble, and grow to become fully functioning members of the community, both locally and on a wider scale, but to have a seperate, and from what I understand, unregulated legal system based upon religious values that usurp the laws of this country as legislated by our democratically elected representatives, makes a mockery of the whole system.

I'm not really sure how the 'Aboriginal' courts thing figures in this conversation, aside from the fact tyhat Australia was an 'Aboriginal' country until we invaded it an forced the legal system of the British Empire upon it...

Are you in favour of judicial pluralism?

Wasn't sure if you were talking dierctly to me in that last line, dissident, but if you were, my answer is yes.
But it should be regulated.

Damon, what's the difference between a legal system based on a religion and the teaching of say, intelligent design in science classes?

In historical and sociological terms it is impossible to disentangle morality (and hence law) from religion.
The definitions of "good" used by humanists ultimately derive from Judeo-Christian thinking in most cases and from a concept of the "sanctity" of human life which relies on reference to a metaphysical abstract just as much as any religion in the others.
Teaching "intelligent design" in science classes is a different issue; it's about knowledge and its transmission, not the regulation of societal behaviour. If it's taught as one of several theories that are in scientific terms unprovable, I don't see the problem.

But then what are they doing in *science* classes?

I reckon this is the key: "The court cannot force anyone to come within its jurisdiction. But once someone agrees to settle a dispute in the Beth Din, he or she is bound in English law to abide by the court's decision."

Essentially the cultural court is recognised at law as a form of mediation, which is entirely logical. Its crucial that they recognise their jurisdiction and don't entertain thoughts of trying criminal matters.

Here's an article describing one of the models we're using in Oz:

http://www.abc.net.au/northwest/stories/s1673800.htm

The youth murri courts in Australia sound interesting.
On religious courts, it doesn't mean I like the idea, but there may be no choice.
If people who have grown up in Somalia and now live here want to have a Gah, how are you going to stop them? Spy on the community? Place microphones in their tea shops to listen to what they are talking about inside? If they were told it was absolutely forbidden, would that be the end of it?
Like geoff says, the courts can't force people to come within it's jurisdiction. (Of course that may not always be easy to ascertain in a community that comes from a failed state like Somalia)

Even so, why would you want to stop them. If the Somali (for example) community have respect for the Gah, I reckon they are less likely to break the law. That is a good thing.

Excuse me?
If the iranian community has a respect for the Sharia, should they have government approved islamic courts to mediate in e.g. divorce, using this Sharia law? The islamic law that is so biased against women in this matter? Even if both parties "agree" to this mediation, I think it's ludicrous.

Admittedly this is a totally new subject for me, never heard of cultural courts before but it gives me really bad vibes.

I didn't think science teaching confined itself to proved hypotheses... it didn't when I was at school.
If it does now, then that is different, though I think it means science is less interesting as a result.

Here is an interesting thread on creationism in science classes.

There is a substantial community in England (hundreds of thousands if not millions of people) that are already subject to a quasi-legal code that is separate from the judicial system; it is administered by a largely self-appointed oligarchy that is not accountable to ordinary members of the community. This elite has the power to impose sanctions upon members varying from fines to the removal of the right to ply ones trade for life (although of course this does not supercede the law of the land). There have been frequent allegations that corruption is almost endemic within the community, but its ruling elite has made only token attempts to investigate them. Women are restricted to a minor role in the community's activities, no woman has ever held a senior position within the governing body or its structures and there is strict segregation on the lines of gender. Black people have historically made a major contribution to the community, but are largely restricted to positions within the lower echelons of the hierarchy. And the elite body is affiliated to an international organisation that is working with global business to establish a worldwide presence and increase its influence in developing countries. Despite its noble ideals, it often appears that money buys control. And violence has been associated with this community for several decades.
Despite all this it is taught in schools and massively promoted on television and radio.




So why don't people attack football instead of religion?

A 'proper' fan is hooked for life & so will be unable to change his (or her) team whatever happens. It's mainly the glory seekers who follw Salford United, Chelskie & the Mercy side teams in England

I think that the inter-action of religious and State judicial systems is a very difficult one. The one experience I have comes from past experience at work and revolves around the Beth Din - the Court of Jewish religious law. This issue was divorce. In order for an orthodox jewish woman to be considered divorced, both by the State and by her own community (and be free to remarry etc.,) she needs both a secular divorce (decree nisi and then decree absolute) and also a "get" which is granted to her by her former spouse. For, no doubt, the vast majority of divorces this proceeded perfectly normally - the couple divorced, the get was granted and life went on... but for a few women the situation was very different - although they divorced under UK law, they were denied a get by their husbands (and only the man can apply). Or they were required to pay their husband a large sum of money for the get (perhaps effectively undoing the UK court's financial settlement for the dissolution of the marriage.

This had grave consequences for the women involved - it meant that they were not free to remarry - any new relationship would be considered adulterous by their community (even if they were actually legally married under the state law), the children would be considered worse than illegitimate... the status of such children would be "mamzer". The mamzer status can never be removed and is passed to all the descendants of the original mamzer. A mamzer cannot marry another Jew or Jewess unless their intended is also a mamzer. Finally, it's important to note that if during the period of waiting for a get the woman started a new relationship, there would be a very real possibility that the get would be conditional - the condition being that the women could not marry her new partner (since she was considered to have begun an adulterous relationship..)

Recently British Law has tried to tackle this to some extent, without fundamentally removing the "right" of citizens to subject themselves to the rulings of religous courts - and our courts have been prepared sometimes to refuse to finalise the civil divorce until the religous get is granted. This at least prevents onerous conditions subsequently being imposed on the woman - but doesn't address the point that the decision to become divorced at all (or not) is left in the gift of the man.

When I was last involved in this subject area religious leaders in the orthodox community were genuinely concerned about the abuse which happened (albeit not routinely), but nevertheless their law bound them just as it bound others, and athough pressure could be brought to bear on unreasonable husbands by communities - ultimately they couldn't be "made" to "act reasonably"...

So, on the whole I'm profoundly uncomfortable with a series of different laws co-exisitng within our community - but at the same time I recognise that we couldn't simply say "right, they don't apply here" because by custom and tradition they do - and the power of community life is very real and very important to most people...

Wow. Interesting. The challenge is to find situations where they can co-exist, and identify situations where one has a higher ground than the other.