I was going to leap to your defence, stevenlmeyer, against the accusations that this thread is nothing more than a troll for the whack-a-mozzie brigade. After all, the underlying question whether we in Australia should extend the concept of arbitration is worth debating.

But you gave yourself away.

>>Even the usual apologists for Islam on these boards have not come up with a satisfactory response to this issue. Pericles, what do you have to say?<<

You should know by now that if I am an “apologist” for anything, it is accuracy. I am not, nor ever have been, an apologist for any single religion, or collection of religions.

The thread has deteriorated into the usual fear and loathing. Here's PALE&IF, in full song:

>>Fact is we do have Sharia Law in Australia not just Britian. Its just that the public are kept in the dark<<

That's two facts, both wrong, and a serving of paranoia. There is no Sharia Law (is she a relative of Laura Norder, I wonder?) in Britain, nor is there any here. As has been repeatedly pointed out, administrative tribunals do not create law, nor does the use of such constitute a separation from the law of the land.

PALE&IF again:

>>We have a unique sense of humor and we give more than any other country in donations.
I would hate to see that part of this country bred out.<<

I'll pass on the “sense of humor[sic]”, and just point out that the bit about “donations” is rubbish too.

www.cafonline.org/pdf/International%20%20Giving%20highlights.pdf

The only thing that is likely to be “bred out” over time is our xenophobia. Gradually we will come to understand that the biggest threat to our sense of wellbeing is not the Muslim next door, but our own attitude, and the corrosive nature of fear and hatred.

Fortunately, we understand this more as we mature.

For the same reason that you rarely hear the elderly say “I wish I had spent more time at the office and less with my family”, you also rarely hear them say “I wish I had hated those Muslims more.”

Pericles: << That's two facts, both wrong, and a serving of paranoia. >>

Which is, of course, quite typical of the discourse from that august organisation. What I find quite extraordinary is that they claim expertise in working with "the Muslim leaders of Australia" through their business activities aimed at exporting halal meat.

If PALE&IF is as conciliatory and diplomatic in their dealings with these "Muslim leaders" as they are in their xenophobic rants in this forum, I bet their joint ventures are going gangbusters.

Pericles:

You have not addressed the issues.

How can we be sure that the parties to a dispute are in a POSITION TO REFUSE arbitration by sharia courts?

Or, if you do not like my singling out sharia courts, any other arbitration forum?

Remember, an important principle of ANY arbitration regime is that the disputants consent FREELY to the procedure. In cases involving domestic violence or abuse I doubt the weaker party is truly free to refuse.

Further, since there is a criminal element to domestic violence I am not sure this is a suitable subject for arbitration of any sort.

Pericles,

"That's two facts, both wrong, and a serving of paranoia. There is no Sharia Law (is she a relative of Laura Norder, I wonder?) in Britain, nor is there any here. As has been repeatedly pointed out, administrative tribunals do not create law, nor does the use of such constitute a separation from the law of the land."

That is an interesting take on it. The British government said they would not introduce Sharia law and then proceeded to provide the subject for this discussion. As Sharia law in the sense of rules of Sharia law being applied in a forum of dispute available to the public is in Britain the British government have been criticised for renegging on their promise.

However they would probably argue as you did. An administrative tribunal is seen as an alternative to the court system and only courts and parliament create law. Sharia law is used in the tribunals but it is no more law of the land then if a football club were to base the rules of its constitution on Sharia law. Administrative tribunals are more enshrined in the public system than a football club certainly but it is still not law of the land. Sharia law may be substantively present in that disputes that would otherwise go to court can be decided according to those rules (and even domestic violence with potential criminal law implications can be redirected there) but it is literally the rules of a process not law of the land and it is literally voluntary even to people in Islamic communities. Interesting.

stevenlmeyer, the point is moot.

>>How can we be sure that the parties to a dispute are in a POSITION TO REFUSE arbitration by sharia courts?<<

We can't.

The availability of arbitration does not in itself demand that it is used. But you have to accept that in many cases it can be of assistance in reaching an agreed position, surely? Why should this be a problem to you?

mjbp provides an interesting angle.

>>Administrative tribunals are more enshrined in the public system than a football club certainly but it is still not law of the land.<<

I would suggest that football provides an excellent example.

Every week we read of players who "front the tribunal", often for actions that - off the field - would constitute assault.

It is not a court of law, otherwise there would be fines and (conceivably) prison sentences involved. Nevertheless, except in the most egregious circumstances, the law accepts the findings, and punishment, of the self-appointed, self-regulated panel.

While the players theoretically have the right to refuse to take part in the proceedings, they rarely do. And that is because they have accepted that this is the way their code handles matters.

We may think that Barry Hall was provoked beyond reasonable limits, and was unlucky that his attempt to move away from his tormentor was construed as a deliberate punch. He however chose to accept the verdict of the tribunal instead of protesting his innocence in front of a Sydney jury. The police, in the meantime, were spared the task of taking 20,000 witness statements, for which I am certain they were very grateful.

>>The British government said they would not introduce Sharia law and then proceeded to provide the subject for this discussion<<

Allowing a football club, or a religious group, to arbitrate their own affairs is not, repeat not, introducing laws.

As I mentioned earlier, if we were talking about workplace issues or planning permits going in front of a tribunal, we'd all be asleep by now.

It is only the fact that Islam is involved that keeps the keyboards rattling.

Pericles

In response to my question "How can we be sure that the parties to a dispute are in a POSITION TO REFUSE arbitration by sharia courts?"

You reply:

We can't.

Fair enough.

This raises the question as to whether arbitration should be an available option when dealing with cases involving domestic violence. It is hard to imagine a battered wife refusing her husband's insistence that any disputed be decided by a sharia court.

This is apart from the fact that arbitration probably should not be used to decide criminal matters.