The big news in the UK over the last week or so has been a speech (text in full here) by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, in which he called for some sort of recognition of Sharia law in British law. To say that this wasn’t received well is an understatement. He’s found at least one defender in the Australian blogosphere. However, what doesn’t appear to have been highlighted by both his opponents and his rare proponents is a significant catch, which is aptly captured in this rather heartfelt rant quoted at Hoyden:
Hey, why not sharia law in Britain? Oh, but only for family matters, says Eyebrow Man, by which he means the entire spectrum of codified patriarchal abuse that governs women’s personal lives: divorce, marriage, custody, marital rape, marital beatings, financial support, “honor,� etc. Clearly His Very Reverend Eyebrows think it’s just peachy keen for women to be second-class citizens because after all, they’re not really human, are they? They’re just women. Eight hundred years of English jurisprudence and a modern European concept of civil rights are fine and dandy, but they do only apply to human beings. Which lets women right out.
Amen to that.
I don’t know whether it’s the fact that Williams is the head of an Established Church (which is not a good thing), or whether like Prince Charles with his desire to be “defender of faiths” it’s a case of religious solidarity that makes him think he’s entitled to pronounce on these matters. Maybe it’s to distract attention from the crumbling nature of his own Anglican Communion, being rent asunder by the extremist homophobia running rampant in many of its churches, fueled in this part of the world by Archbishop Jensen of Sydney. Who knows? But someone should let him know that one very good reason why we have a secular legal system is to get old religious men’s hands off women’s bodies!
Good on ya, Kim. Necessary post.
This matter was discussed on the Religion Report last night:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2008/2161185.htm
This is another instance of somebody kowtowing to a certain belief system so they can come out looking all progressive and multicultural. What the archbishop is suggesting would, if put into effect, be the opposite of progressive and multicultural.
Well put, Darlene.
Links of interest:
http://www.scopical.com.au/articles/News/World/2637/Singer_banned_for_violating_Sharia_law
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/10/religion.law1
Quote from link above:
“And where Sharia law is applied, it varies too. In Saudi Arabia, there are frequent executions and amputations, justified by selective reading of the Islamic holy texts. Elsewhere such punishments are rarely or never applied. In Saudi Arabia too, women may not drive. In Bangladesh and Pakistan, they can. As there is no reference to motor vehicles in the Koran, the decision as to who can or can’t drive them has been made by (male) Islamic scholars. States in the Islamic world have made repeated efforts over centuries to co-opt and control the clergy, frequently with disastrous results.”
Interesting… did you happen to hear the Malaysian guest Philip Adams used to have on his little wireless show a few years ago? The guy used to chat about Islam; he went on the haj. Philip asked him about some of the extreme practices in Saudi etc. He said, “Oh that’s not really Islam, we see that as ARAB practice. They’re a bit peculiar about some of those things….” I got the imptession he was indicating that today’s Islam is “a very broad mosque” and that certain national/cultural practices were foreign to mainstream Islam, and not directly stated in the Koran [cf Darlene's post: interpretation by scholars, no cars mentioned in the Koran].
He seemed a very tolerant guy, as do the Malaysian Muslim students (women and men) I meet.
Trouble is, at root the British system isn’t secular.
So frocked up old farts of all obscurantist persuasions tend to find common cause when their cosmological fantasies come under question.
Institutional survival trumps women’s rights.
Though an irredeemable heathen, I have a soft spot for the Church of England because it is part of the fabric of Britain, like thatched cottages, Handel’s Messiah, bobbies, foggy London etc.
And there’s usually a vicar about in those splendid English mysteries both in book form and on telly.
I didn’t mind Williams till he came out with this nonsense. He looked suitably befuddled and scholarly enough to be the Archbish of every Anglophile’s dreams, even to the leather patches on the ancient tweed jacket, and he has mildly progressive views on women and gays.
I can’t imagine what has prompted this latest comment.
Anything that is remotely modern and progressive about Sharia (such as property rights for women) has already been taken up by our common law.
I look forward to Assyrian Britons demanding the full introduction of Hammurabi’s Law. Or to the local Magistrate allowing me to spear someone who has aggrieved me in the leg.
Yes, Katz, that’s true, and one of the stupider apologias for Williams was that British family law already embodied Christian religious precepts. All the more reason for moving away from that approach, not extending it to other faiths. However, as the quote indicates, to some degree that’s already the case with the introduction of European Union civil jurisprudence into British common law.
So mild in the latter case that he completely walked away from them when he became Archbishop.
Could someone donate a spare copy of Leviathan to Dr Williams?
Suggest this post and thread be archived in some specially marked cyberplace from which it can be easily retrieved as evidence for the next round of ‘How come feminists never loudly denounce blah blah blah’.
Progressive is not the same as multicultural in this context. The AB of C was attempting to be inclusive, but his inclusiveness went beyond progressivism. He was being tolerant of intolerance; for that is what sharia law is – intolerant. A progressive doesn’t tolerate the misogynistic nature of sharia law. He or she would speak out against it.
The “defender of the faith,” whether he be Anglican, Catholic or Muslim, is driven to adopt a conservative position. Williams started out as a moderate/progressive, but the requirements of the position have slowly driven his progressivism out of him. He was bound to say something conservative and stupid. That is the nature of organized religion.
Until a Christian leader comes out with a strong feminist message, the patriarchalism of Christianity will out. But such a feminist leader will never emerge, because deep down, every male clergyman knows that feminism will destroy Christianity.
I don’t have much time for the more over the top responses to Williams but there is plenty to criticise about these proposals, and not all of it is about the content of sharia law. It is perhaps more important to point out, as is suggested here, that the areas in which this proposal are supposed to be applied fit within the parameters of the ‘private’ as it is traditionally defined in Western societies. They are thus directed largely at women’s bodies as the spaces where it continues to be legitimate to inscribe religious and cultural pronouncements, and to play out these disputes.
We should be careful to recognise that the issue should be less that of discussing Sharia law (which is what has drawn the attention of the popular media etc) and more about the way in which some continue to pronounce on the control of women’s bodies. Had Williams proposed something regressive from the Christian tradition, the feminists and secularists might have less friends than on this one. As it is, the M* word has got everyone interested, so let’s take the opportunity to reaffirm a general feminist position.
I agree with all that, Klaus. It was also noted in the debate that British law recognised Jewish religious law in matrimonial and such matters. I don’t think that ought to be the case any more than Sharia law should be incorporated, and again as I was saying at 7, the obvious conclusion is to take the law in the direction of universal application of human rights rather than to balkanise it according to every religious view.
Definitely, Kim. And of course, there is nothing therein preventing people from voluntarily submitting to this or that religious law as things stand, so long as they don’t attempt to apply those laws where they are not wanted or otherwise break the laws of the land.
Hahahaha, go for the positive spin.
Not just Christianity either. Every established religion is for men by men.
I wish more women realised that.
“Every established religion is for men by men.”
I don’t think so, or at least it doesn’t have to be that way. I know lots of progressive and feminist women who also consider themselves Christian who would disagree with this as well.
Exactly what I was thinking, PC. Also note this post from not so long ago about women bloggers/journalists in Iran:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/01/28/the-last-refuge-of-communication/
“Not just Christianity either. Every established religion is for men by men.
I wish more women realised that.”
Absolutely. Even the so-called cuddly religions have sexist elements.
Well, Klaus, I consider myself a Catholic but it’s pretty obvious to me that the church is run by men, although I don’t think it’s “for men”. Perhaps things might have been different if my campaign to become Pope Joan II had gathered more momentum?
“it’s pretty obvious to me that the church is run by men, although I don’t think it’s “for menâ€?
That’s pretty much my position on the matter also, and it’s pretty common among progressive Christians I talk with. Personally, I’m an atheist who was raised an atheist, but I’m very attentive to the tendency towards overreaching found in some anti-religious arguments.
I think that comes about because these matters are so emotionally charged for many – even many agnostics/atheists. But it’s a wise thing to guard against it.
Kim, you as Pope Joan II would have been awesome. Best potential Pope evah!
Bless you, my son!
Kim,
If you were looking for defenders in the Oz blogosphere, you missed me. I would strongly recommend that you actually read what he said, rather than the media reports, as I think you have missed the substance – just as much as some of those who went into hysterics over it (although, to make it clear, I do not believe you have).
He is clearly saying that we need to arrive at an understanding of, and some accommodation with, Sharia, rather than just accepting a particular interpretation of it as you seem to be implying.
In some areas it would be easy to deal with – in financial transactions for example there are many non-Muslims (and many bloggers and commenters on this site) who may agree with many of the ideas. In other areas it may be impossible (stoning adulterers to death, for example). To imply, as you are, that the whole idea is to get old religious men’s hands on women’s bodies is to me at least, drawing a very long bow – perhaps past breaking point.
I agree with all those who defend a secular approach to law, not least for the reason quoted in the last sentence of the original post.
However after reading the speech I’m not sure that its content has been entirely accurately reflected.
Two quotes from it:
Depends on several premises doesn’t it?
1. That there is a supreme being (debatable and there is currently no scientific evidence of one anyway)
2. That within their brand of Christianity (or any other religion but since you’ve mentioned Christianity…) women are totally equal to men in the roles they perform and are acknowledged as being so before their God.
And then of course in Christianity you have the considerable obstacle presented by the Scriptures.
So a Christian woman in a teaching/pastoral role would be saying for instance “Yes I know it says that in the Bible but in actual fact…”
In other words yet another instance of trying to find a way around the insurmountable obstacles which would not be there if religious faith was what it purports to be.
Even in supposedly egalitarian denominations such as the Uniting Church there are ongoing battles between progressive feminists and traditionalists on a whole range of issues, both theological/ecclesiastical and social.
You haven’t achieved equality anywhere if you have to re-fight the same battles over and over again. Anyone campaigning for reproductive rights and affordable universal child care will know this and tell you these issues were not suddenly invented in the 90s.
So I am not sure how these feminists reconcile belief with their feminism. There must be a fair amount of philosophical gymnastics involved.
Personally, I find atheism/agnosticism does away for the need for all this strenuous exercise. Then you are ready to focus on the social issue at hand, even if it’s the same bloody battle you fought 40 years ago.
Genuine question, does this also imply opposition to incorporation of aspects of traditional Aboriginal law into Australian legal practice?
“does this also imply opposition to incorporation of aspects of traditional Aboriginal law into Australian legal practice?”
I think there are grounds for including, say, alternative sentencing arrangements – which could be drawn from traditional law – as a way of offsetting the disproportionate number of Aboriginal deaths in custody, especially in the case of repeated minor offences.
I think the Sydney Anglican discussion on homosexuality has been quite balanced http://your.sydneyanglicans.net/forums/viewthread/3115/
As I understand it, indigenous law is a type of social contract. At least that is how it is viewed where it has been incorporated in other jurisdictions. There are of course spiritual aspects to it (distinct from “religious”) because indigenous society is based on spiritual beliefs about ancestors and land.
Native Title partly represents the incorporation of indigenous law into our law.
Where there is conflict between indigenous law and European law, European law prevails, again as is seen in Native Title and in the recent Jodeen Carney case in the Northern Territory.
Agreed Kim @ [7], and slowly the principles of international human rights law ARE being incorporated into national laws, here and there.
For a small local instance, see the Review of Family Violence Laws (March 2006) by the Victorian Law Reform Commission http://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/Law+Reform/Home/Completed+Projects/Family+Violence/LAWREFORM+-+Review+of+Family+Violence+Laws+-+Report
To quote from section 1.20 of the Introduction, “The commission has considered Victoria’s international obligations to combat violence against women when making recommendations for change. Violence against women, including violence in the family, has been recognised at the international level as a fundamental violation of human rights.”
Depends on whether you can shoo the elephant of Biblical proscription out of the philosophical kitchen.
The only post there that made sense was the post on scientific research showing not only the probable genetic and biochemical origins of sexual orientation, but its implied longevity in the human phenome.
Of course your average 1st Century rabbinical scholar was not in possession of that knowledge. But he already knew homosexuality was icky because it did not produce children within a heterosexual marriage.
Question for the commenters here:
If it could be shown that large numbers of muslim men were refusing to leave any inheritance to their daughters (or were leaving their daughters vastly less than their sons), would commenters here then support the right of conservative muslim women, who want to marry such men (god only knows why!) to force their husbands to sign a sharia marriage contract which guaranteed their daughters would inherit half as much as their sons? It could be a lot easier for the daughters to inherit half the amount under such a contract, than to contest the will in a conservative family where older (male and female) family members would refuse to support them.
Bearing in mind, of course, that there are lebanese and arabic shops all over Australia which may be left in entirety to the sons of the shopkeepers; and that access to inheritance money is, of course, a good way of undoing some of the social disadvantage which many muslim women face.
“in financial transactions”
Fine. Let’s have Islamic banking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking for those who want it.
This means no interest paid on loans (yippee!!!) but, and there’s always a but, the bank gets paid in different, but equivalent, ways.
It’s harmless enough.
But, no stoning adulterers, please.
SG,
I thought that making of wills in Australia was under the jurisdiction of State laws? Not private family arrangements etc. – is there a solicitor in the house?
Another defence of Rowan Williams in the Oz blogosphere is found in two posts: the first includes significant quotes, and explores the implications of islamic rules against usury in financial law within countries like Australia. The second considers Williams’ general question of resolution of different legal systems, pointing out that Anglophone Common Law is in the minority, that Civil law is better, and that religiously motivated activism that changes legal systems can be useful (e.g. advocating changes to slavery laws and execution of minors). I’ll be writing a followup on the corruptions over time of Sharia for political purposes, which have moved it from the idealized “Civil Law” equivalent it started with to the “Common Law” created by mad mullahs.
maybe ambigulous, but if one sees an area of the community where the normal system isn’t working, then an obvious option is to set up some special law to fix it. And if it were the case that muslim girls were being disinherited because their daddies weren’t even willing to live up to the command of their religious beliefs, a system of sharia law extending into that area of their lives might work to change it. After all, if the right-wing noise machine is to be believed these guys refuse to follow “our” laws because “our” laws are godless. But if you gave them the option to sign a sharia contract…
I would be interested to see, just by way of comparison, what proportion of white parents leave equal amounts to their daughters and sons. I suspect it is less common than we would like to believe.
Spiros,
Depending on the interpretation of Sharia it can be that any pricing in advance is banned – so a lending bank has to share in the upside or downside of the transaction. This needs a much longer piece than a blog comment – so if you are interested have a look here.
.
Mark – I hope a little self-spriuking is acceptable.
Yes. Unless, of course, aspects of Indigenous customary law are incorporated into Australian common law generally – as with Mabo – or into statute law.
I hadn’t read Klaus at 28 when I wrote my last comment.
Agreed, but that would have to be within a framework of restorative justice where various parties agree on an alternative sentence measure and thus incorporated into a broader framework allowing discretion on the part of judges. And conducted and supervised as a public judicial practice, not as some sort of private or communal retribution. But there can be no place for things like spearings. I was horrified years ago when there were reports of a young Murri boy being speared through the leg in Queensland and the justification for this was that he was a gay boy.
Andrew, no need to worry about posting a link. If you look at our comments policy, we encourage people to link to posts on their own blogs rather than writing lengthy dissertations in the comments thread.
Indeed, Kim, I agree with your qualifications. I’m not sure whether the spearing for the ‘offense’ you mention would necessarily have been approved of by elders, but even if it had it’s not really the kind of punishment that could be reasonably incorporated into our legal system even for other, legitimate offenses.
SG @ 37, in my fumbling way I was expressing astonishment that any deceased person, who had lived in Australia, could leave property in Australia, in a manner inconsistent with State laws on wills, inheritance, probate etc. But I’m ignorant.
I had thought “private, family” arrangements – call them contracts – were not legal. Why do they sell “Will Kits” in newsagencies? Or are those just purchased by Christians and infidel atheists
No, I think it wasn’t, Klaus, though it was prominently defended by one prominent person whom I won’t name as they’re now deceased.
Andrew, how does Islamic banking work for housing finance, where there are no profits or losses to be shared (at least until the house is sold)?
Thanks Kim – I missed that.
.
Ambigulous – they can be legal if they fit the legal definition of a contract. Courts will not normally give effect to private arrangements if the only consideration (payment) is to allow normal family relations – i.e. love, care, attention etc. If the consideration is financial or other assets then they may well make them enforceable.
(Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer and the above does not constitute legal advice)
ambigulous, no slight intended. I have myself made a will and as far as I can tell there is no restriction on what you can and can’t leave to whoever you want. So when I made my will I didn’t have to leave all my money to Paris Hilton (just ’cause she shagged me once).
Muslim men don’t have to leave their money (or their business) to anyone according to any rule as far as I know. Hence the question – if it was seen to be the case that these men were not willing to leave money to their daughters (statistically, I mean), then wouldn’t a codified form of sharia law that included the much maligned “only half as much to a woman” clause serve to reduce inequality between girls and boys in the subsequent generations? And would commenters in principle support this, ? (Or I suppose, at least accept the possibility that a seemingly unjust sharia law could in practice serve to improve the rights of women in these communities).
I am of course assuming such a contract would be voluntary (see my previous comment).
I’m not defending the Archbishop or his suggestion, btw. I’m interested, is all.
“if it was seen to be the case that these men were not willing to leave money to their daughters (statistically, I mean), then wouldn’t a codified form of sharia law that included the much maligned”
If they aren’t prepared to follow sharia law in the first place why would the existence of a voluntary sharia court make any difference?
well, for example, they want to marry some muslim girl and she wants to live under a conservative social system, but wants to ensure that she has the minimum rights such a system guarantees her. So she presents her fiance with a marriage contract drawn up under standard aussie sharia law (for example). Now instead of lying to her about his views (or just not raising them) until it is too late, her husband-to-be needs to either sign the document (and pony up the cash when he dies) or say no – in which case the muslim woman in question has clear evidence that her husband-to-be is a ne’er do well. If we go the whole hog and suppose that the marriage is arranged in the first place, this gives her legitimate grounds to call the whole thing off. What good traditional girl would marry a man who won’t allow himself to be bound by precepts of traditional law? This could be a strong defensive point for a woman who has legitimate suspicions about her husband-to-be’s intentions, but whose community won’t prima facie accept her decision not to marry him.
There are still advanced societies in the world (e.g. Japan) where men and women arrange marriages, or marry for reasons other than love. These kinds of practices don’t end just because they’ve come to the land of milk and honey. Codifying such a law enables the people doing this to set a proper framework for the behaviour – a framework which might have existed in the culture they came from, but (for reasons of cultural difference) is lacking here. Such people don’t usually throw the baby out with the bathwater – they may maintain some of the cultural practices, but only discover too late that without the backing of the society they are based in, such practices are rife for abuse.
13 Kim. The Bishops references to Jewish law were disingenuous in the extreme. According to a Jewish lady in England the English law makes exactly 1 accommodation to the Jewish “courts� system. And that is apparently to prevent social embarrassment rather than a tangible outcome.
When you read his speech and see the number of times he referred to it, it was a fairly dishonest bit of sophistry.
As for Tribal Aboriginal systems? I have a problem with mainstream Australia banning any form of corporal punishment through the justice system, while allowing another group of Australians to dish out bashings and spearing as a parallel system.
Ambiguluous and Andrew,
Wills aren’t contracts, but a separate category of document. Inheritance law in Australia is mostly governed by statutes specifically for that purpose, e.g the Succession Act in Queensland and the Wills Acts in the other States.
Generally speaking, a person has a wide discretion as to how they distribute their property via their will, but there are restrictions. Typically, there are requirements to make “proper provision” for dependents and family members. A will can be challenged on the basis that “proper provision” hasn’t been made.
If a person dies without a will, the property is distributed according to a statutory formula, and divvied up between the surviving kids, spouse(s) and parents.
Hope this helps.
Ahem, I just realised I misread what what you were asking, Ambigulous, and how Andrew answered. Sorry about that.
My thinking is that, even if the parents signed a “sharia contract” that specified how the inheritance would be distributed to the kids, that wouldn’t necessarily bar a daughter from challenging the will on the basis of proper provision being made for her.
That said, I don’t think the law requires equal distribution between children, so a sharia-style will might still stand.
my point was that a sharia-style will might serve to enforce a more equitable distribution than would occur if the parents were left to themselves. Some muslims I have spoken to do maintain that the Koran was meant to introduce new laws of fair dealing between the sexes, in which case it could present an ameliorating influence on the behaviour of sexist and selfish men, for women who are not able to or want to marry outside of a conservative religious community.
SG,
I really should read these threads more carefully.
The difficulty I see with your proposition is that it can work both ways – while it might, as you say, serve to protect daughters’ interests in the case of a man who would otherwise refuse to leave them anything, it could also have the oppostie effect of legitimising the view that daughters should be left with less than sons.
Thanks very much for that info, Mole.
But isn’t that the whole question?
I’m pretty sure that the ABoC is not suggesting completely separate courts but forms of jurisdiction which are supplementary to the secular law. They would not be abe to enforce penalties that were substantially contrary to the secular law (stonings or spearings) and would be specifically empowered by the secular law (ie incorporated into statute law).
I’m interested because I’m personally divided in my opinion(s) about how to incorporate traditional law into Australian jurisrudence, and really see this question as being analagous.
Some parts of me see no room for religious intervention into legal rights, while others point out that our legal forms manifest prejudices.irrespectively..
Aren’t the questions slightly different?
I’m not sure that many people argue that Australian courts should sanction spearings, indeed they don’t.
Where an offender has freely chosen to submit to a spearing, should the court be allowed to consider that as a mitigating factor in sentencing?
Or is the law always obliged to prosecute the spearer, regardless of whether the victim consented?
Is it a question of whether consent can be freely given in a situation like this?
How can traditional practices short of sanctions like spearing be incorporated
No wuckers Kim, If i hadnt stumbled on her article on this point a few days away Id have had no idea just how little he was hanging his metaphorical shingle on.
Yep, I’d assumed, Mole, that there was some formal recognition of Jewish religious custom by law.
Martin:
I’m not a lawyer, and don’t know whether there would have to be a complainant or whether it could be prosecuted as an assault by the cops. However, I don’t think consent is relevant. Surely consent can never be freely given for the infliction of a serious injury. I know that depends on how you define “free”, but I think the most judicious solution is to say such punishments are cruel and ought never to be sanctioned by Australian law. It seems to me to be consistent that they ought not either to be accepted as a mitigating factor in sentencing, because effectively that condones an illegality.
Spearing is a grave assault. Under our common law a person cannot legally be held to have consented to such an assault. The law is always obliged to prosecute the spearer. Otherwise we’d end up with vigilante justice where the assailant coerces “consent” from the victim by threatening even greater violence if it is not given.
Where would this end? In the vileness that existed up into the nineteenth century where a man could lawfully chastise his wife (with a rod no thicker than his thumb), provided he did not inflict permanent injury upon her, because her marriage vows implied her consent.
There have been (from memory) cases where the police in remote areas of WA have attended “payback” bashings and stuff to ensure they havent gotten completely out of hand.
The reasoning is usualy if the offender isnt punished by the family group of the person they assaulted (its usualy bashings and stuff) the offenders family ends up wearing the payback, usualy resulting in long term tit for tat fueding.
The police consider a controlled beating (usualy after they have been dealt with by white law) better than uncontrolled fueds and paybacks.
A few WA judges have taken into account this “double punishment” and imposed lighter sentences.
Heres a couple of links.
http://www.getaccess.wa.gov.au/careers/profiles/data/OCC257.asp
”Different clans have different ways of looking at situations and dealing with them. In Halls Creek, for example, they still believe in tribal punishment, where the offender is punished in front of his community, and they still partake in tribal ceremonies.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2004/02/13/1044870.htm
“..But Mr Southwood said there is no evidence that previous spearings have caused grievous injury, meaning a traditional spearing in this case would be lawful..”
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ILB/2004/59.html
The Supreme Court of Western Australia (‘WA’) has handed down a suspended custodial sentence to an Aboriginal woman convicted of manslaughter after considering the inevitability of a tribal punishment yet to be carried out. Acknowledging that Deborah Sturt was unlikely to repeat the offence, Justice Michael Murray noted that she was remorseful and lived in fear of the forthcoming punishment which will be carried out on a relative should she not return to her home region.
Im not happy with any accomodation of corporal punishment being recognised or sanctioned by any branch of the legal system. It took centuries to get rid of the hangmans noose and the stocks.
Kim says:
I dont know what Kim is complaining about. The very reverend is just taking her pet theory of multiculturalism to its logical extreme: seperate legal jurisdictions for different ethnicities. Lets celebrate diversity by stoning adulterers!
It is hard to follow the Byzantine path of the mind of this thourougly post-modern girl. I am getting dizzy and RSI to the neck trying to follow the various contortions and flip-flops Kim gets into in the vain effort to recocile contradictions in her illogical ideology.
Not so long ago she was criticising liberal women who were complaining about “old religious men [getting their hands on] women’s bodies”. Now she had done a hasty back-flip and landed…in the Strocchi-erse of all places! It works in mysterious ways, its wonders to perform.
No doubt I am just indulging in some mischieous reductio ad absurdum merely to score a few cheap debating points. But then absurdity is pretty much the only thing on the menu for liberal-Leftists like Kim, who want to have their feminist cake and eat their multicultural one to.
“Im not happy with any accomodation of corporal punishment being recognised or sanctioned by any branch of the legal system. It took centuries to get rid of the hangmans noose and the stocks.”
Indeed, and alternative sentencing shouldn’t involve the violation of other laws by third parties. My interest would be in the case of minor offenses where current sentencing may be both disproportionate to the crime due to remoteness and cultural considerations, and at the same time ineffective with respect to future rehabilitation.
So what’s a Strokey-arse…presumably something that should be avoided as a health hazard?
I am sure Strokers himself and his arse would love to return to older times where presumably the array of Spanish Inquisition torture paraphenalia would excite him considerably.
After all any school librarian will tell you the most popular books for adolescent boys after the Harry Potters and Guinness Book of Records are any works on medieval tortures.
No culture has a monopoly on “good” or “bad” legal systems. The cumbersome juggernaut of common law and trial by jury or its Continental Roman Law-based equivalent has been jigged over time to work for most people most of the time in modern democracies.
However their history is littered with examples of torture, amputations and mutilations and trial by ordeal. As late as the 17th Century they were still trying women for “witchcraft” (i.e. not knowing their “place”) in England and its colonies, and English law continued to hang and transport children to the colonies for petty pilfering well into the 19th Century.
Continental law also kept many medieval relics like the Inquisition and an array of tortures into relatively modern times.
As far as the legal rights of women were concerned, Sharia is not the only system with a poor track record.
Married women under common law were barred from owning property in in their own right till the end of the 19th Century. Women were also largely barred from voting until well into the 20th Century except in a couple of backwaters like South Australia and New Zealand.
Witchcraft trials had disappeared by the 20th Century, only to be replaced by a variety of “morals” statutes, such as the NSW one of “being in moral danger” (i.e. teenage girls having consensual sex with boys their age) For that crime you could be removed from your home and placed in an institution, presumably so far older predators could have free access to you.
And it was prostitutes who were charged, never the clients.
Sharia was no doubt progressive in its time compared with what would have been previously arbitrary and often inconsistent tribal law relying on the fiat of the chieftain.
No doubt in 100 years’ time people will look back on early 21st Century Australian law and find it quaint, opaque, cumbersome, Anglo-centric and unduly punitive.
No just being quaint, opaque, cumbersome, Anglo-centric and unduly punitive. And a weak speller to boot.
Don’t miss the school bus.
The argument – and I repeat that I don’t have a firm view myself, I am conflicted – is that the perception of cruelty might well be somewhat relative. For example in a community where there is, or has been, a relatively high rate of deaths in custody, offenders might be genuinely terrified of custodial sentences. On what basis do you then make the judgement that custodial sentences are not unusually cruel, but spearings are?
I’m a bit sorry to have brought up separings though, because there certainly are possibilities for incorporating supplementary (not separate) jurisdictions in ways that don’t involve substantial violation of the overarching law. Whether or not this is a good isea is another question – the one that should be discussed.
Having the debate only about whether Islamic law will produce stonings or Aboriginal law will produce spearings is really a sideshow (although obviously I think there are interesting questions in the latter case).
Thanks Tim @ [54]
I had only a vague idea of action taken by Australian courts, to ensure minimum provision for dependant relatives. I recalled that the court may allocate a substantial share to those the old codger had disinherited, while not insisting on equality of shares. e.g. If he left 80% to the dog’s home, 20% to his favourite niece and 0% to his own kids, they’d likely cut back on the dog’s home’s share somewhat, in favour of his offspring.
I ask again, then: in contemporary Australia, can a deceased Muslim* – male or female – get away with a disposition of his/her estate, that seems very skewed, perhaps AWAY from daughters, or in some other way apparently grossly unfair?
* or a deceased Anglican, deceased Zoroastrian, deceased RC, deceased atheist; they’re dead and gone, OK?
hey guys, I think we’re getting ahead of ourselves here. The ABoC wasn’t making any particular recommendations about incorporating sharia law into criminal law in the UK – in fact didn’t he explicitly state that any law would have to be consistent with European human rights law?
So all this spearing stuff is irrelevant to the sharia issue. Although it’s interesting to note that it goes on whatever the law says, and some (enlightened?) cops seem to think monitoring it is better than ignoring it. Sounds like a very Australian solution to having different communities in one country. And doesn’t sound any more extreme than a form of codified sharia law, either.
The English Bill of Rights of 1689, as received into Australian law, prohibits “cruel and unusual” punishments. It is also a part of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Australia is a signatory.
So under that principle, spearings may well be barred where customary law is otherwise accepted.
I think you will find that raising the issue of custodial sentences as being “cruel and unusual” will open a very large can of worms.
Obviously custodial sentences are often inappropriate for indigenous people, as statistics on Aboriginal deaths in custody show. For non-violent “victimless” crimes there is a case for seeking alternatives for indigenous offenders, such as restorative justice circles.
However no community, indigenous or non-indigenous, would probably be happy with the notion of violent killers and rapists out on the streets.
“my point was that a sharia-style will might serve to enforce a more equitable distribution than would occur if the parents were left to themselves”
Well, if that is your concern then why not a law that applies to all regardless of religion. ATM there is nothing preventing a parent providing disproportionate inheritance between male and female offspring. Although it does allow for a will to be contested especially if one member is disinherited completely.
There are also sexist and selfish men that aren’t Muslim.
Yes, I agree and I apologised above for the diversion. Although in my defence I did point out this fact – with quotes from the speech – way back up there.
pollytickedoff, I mentioned somewhere above that I don’t think this problem exists only amongst Muslim men. I raised this as a counter-point to the general idea that such a law would be privileging muslims over non-muslims (rather than, say, being done to redress particular problems in their community) and also to the idea that sharia law is necessarily worse than the alternatives. Women inheriting half of a man’s amount is raised as a common example of how sexist sharia law is, but I am not aware of any particular statistics showing that non-muslim men give equal amounts to all their children.
MartinB, no particular criticism intended. With this particular issue though, it seems to need to be said every 3 minutes or so, “no-one is proposing the stoning of adulterers”, or the comment thread slides into the strocchi-verse.
Pollytickedoff,
It may also be helpful if you acknowledged that selfishness and sexism is not restricted to men – in fact (assuming you are a woman) your statement is in itself evidence that sexism is not restricted to men, in that it implies that only men are selfish and sexist, a position I find highly sexist.
Spearings can lead to permanent injury. On the other hand, considering conditions in jail, maybe I’ll take the spearing.
Andrew
“It may also be helpful if you acknowledged that selfishness and sexism is not restricted to men”
No, it isn’t restricted to men. I was responding to SR who made the ’selfish and sexist men’ comment. I was pointing out that that attitude is not restricted to a single religion. Sexist and selfish women also exist and aren’t restricted to one religion either.
If you want to have a go at someone, have a go at the person who made the original comment even though if screenname doesn’t indiate gender.
pollytickedoff, I think you have the wrong end of the stick on my question. Please don’t interpret the existence of the question or the conditions surrounding it as evidence that I do or don’t single out muslim men for the accusation of “selfish and sexist”. All the uproar around this issue (mostly not occuring on this blog, thankfully), seems to involve the combination of claims that 1) muslim men are sexist pigs 2) sharia is a terribly sexist thing 3) muslim men will never follow secular law 4) muslim women are all victims of this stuff.
I happen to think that all positions except 2) are not necessarily true, and 3) and 4) are almost everywhere and always wrong. What I do think is that if 1) is even half as true as the Daily Mail contends, then the conditions we know to be true in sharia law would actually serve to moderate the behaviour of muslim men, and if 3) were true it would be in everyone’s interests (most particularly the interests of the poor dear lambs described in 4)) to institute sharia law.
However, I don’t really believe any of the claims except 2). So, a bit of patience if you please.
Pollytickedoff,
I did miss the earlier comment, so apologies. I also think you did somewhat over-generalise a specific point that SG made, but I will bow out on that specific point.
SG,
“my point was that a sharia-style will might serve to enforce a more equitable distribution than would occur if the parents were left to themselves”
My problem is I don’t see how sharia courts would solve the problem suggested ie inequitable inheritance (which I read to mean she gets nothing if following sharia law would result in a MORE equitable distribution).
If a Muslim parent is ignoring sharia law by leaving nothing to the female offspring she may in fact be advantaged by contesting the will rather than relying on sharia law.
Andrew,
“I also think you did somewhat over-generalise a specific point that SG made”
Maybe, but I was reading that statement in the context of SG’s post at 49 as well, not just that particular post. I may have totally misunderstood SG altogether. I even admit to getting SG’s scrrenname wrong when responding to you earlier (sorry SG).
At least I have entered into a dialogue in an attempt to understand why sharia might be a solution to a problem (if there is a problem) that isn’t necessarily restricted to Muslims.
pollytickedoff, no harm done. My idea is that the woman entering the marriage would have this contract drawn up under sharia law, which forces her husband to leave half as much money to future daughters as to future sons. Nasty,　eh. But he was planning on leaving none. This is obviously the sort of thing one doesn’t usually discuss when popping the question (or the sprogs). If it becomes relevant 20 years later, when the will is being written and the spouses affairs are all intertwined with the community, the wife won’t have much influence on her husband (if he is as sexist as we are supposing).
On the other hand, if he has signed this mutually-agreed-to contract under his religion’s law, he has no freedom to make ajudgement about it. As soon as he takes the will to his lawyer, his lawyer will check his marriage contract and bingo! half the sweets shop goes to Fatima. Particularly handy if she’s been working there without a salary for mummy and daddy since the age of 2. (These are the things we’re supposing right?)
Obviously at the time of negotiating the marriage contract the wife-to-be has no power to force anything. But if there is a pre-written standard contract she just has to get her husband-to-be to sign on the dotted line. If he says no, well, she can only assume that he is a godless heathen or planning on treating her less fairly than sharia law allows. And in either case, why would a good muslim girl marry such a man?
This is the kind of model I’m supposing might actually work to improve equality in highly sexist communities. Obviously there are other approaches, obviously it has big problems. Another positive aspect mentioned in a thread in another blog was that by asking religious figures to contribute to such a legal framework, in consultation with muslim women, our pluralist liberal multicultural super state gets to provide muslims with an opportunity to modernise islam, cooperatively and voluntarily and with womens’ input. It might remain conservative, but if the principles have to be in line with mainstream law, it could help a lot. If they are as sexist as we are supposing… which I think is a big if.
1. Multiculti and “human rights” are contradictory and certainly not “progressive.”
2. Britain’s greatness was built on Anglicanism; its decline is caused by multiculti.
3. What Katz thinks of as “secularism” is nothing more than a branch of Anglicanism
4. Kim has only posted this to try and bury the putrid reputation she justifiably acquired over her abominable bile against real feminists such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
5. “Human rights” is nothing more than western Xian cultural imperialism.
I hope this helps.
The NSW Government has moved to reduce disputes over wills but may be open to ways of making more improvements.
It’s an obvious plus for Iemma, who needs some pluses, it costs the Government nothing and it’s good for consumers.
hallelujah, sorcerer!
that’s what Australia needs: secular governments overriding the idiosyncracies of religious prejudices or nasty-interpretations-by-silly-old-men
john: nothing you say ever helps, except to show what an idiot you are.
Obviously an essential qualification for the post of Archbishop of Canterbury, which Rowan Williams lacks, is the ability to speak in sound bites.
Let Gordon Brown and HM the Queen take note. If Barack Obama doesn’t get to be president of the USA, he’s got that one down pat.