One clarification on my previous post.

It is not the fact that sharia tribunals are deciding on important matters that I find inappropriate. As I have made abundantly clear, I see no problem in a sharia tribunal acting as arbitrator in a civil matter provided ALL parties to a dispute FREELY CONSENT to the arbitration process.

My objections refer solely to the following:

--Giving sharia tribunals criminal jurisdiction of any sort; and

--Allowing the tribunals to arbitrate in cases involving domestic violence – especially since in these cases there is reason to believe that the battered spouse may not, realistically, be in a position to refuse consent to the arbitration procedure.

Just trying to find some clarity in your position, stevenlmeyer.

Sorry if it embarrasses you.

For those who are interested here is a BBC report on the inside of a sharia "court."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7238890.stm

There is, of course, no way of knowing how representative this is of British sharia "courts" in general.

Since this sort of sharia arbitration will inevitably come to Australia, and since they will affect the lives of a growing proportion of Australians, it is important to gain as much understanding as possible of the way the sharia "courts" operate.

In a way I suppose we may consider the British experience as a pilot project for the introduction of sharia arbitration tribunals into Australia.

The next phase will undoubtedly be arbitration courts for other religious groups.

Always the negative interpretation. Always the points-scoring.

From the article:

"No-one knows how many Sharia courts there are in the country, and not all will follow such liberal interpretations of Sharia."

No evidence for this, of course. Just a desire to mitigate the positive impression that the rest of the article presents.

From stevenlmeyer, channeling the BBC:

>>There is, of course, no way of knowing how representative this is of British sharia "courts" in general.<<

Just in case anyone might think "well, that seems to be a pretty good thing, all things considered"

It's important to keep the fear threshold up, so that we are always prepared for the disaster that will inevitably strike, eh stevenlmeyer?

>>In a way I suppose we may consider the British experience as a pilot project for the introduction of sharia arbitration tribunals into Australia<<

From the tone of the article, and the environment it describes. I would be amazed if there weren't dozens in operation here in Australia at this very moment.

Why would such activity require a "pilot project" anyway? Surely, what amounts to religion-based marriage guidance is part of the fabric of any like-minded community?

It's when it grows into a political movement - like Family First - that questions need to be asked.

Pericles wrote:

"I would be amazed if there weren't dozens in operation here in Australia at this very moment."

I know for a fact that there are sharia "courts" in Australia. However their decisions MAY not be binding.

In the UK, provided all parties to a dispute consent to the sharia arbitration process, the civil courts will enforce the decision of the sharia "court." No one I have asked seems able to say whether an Australian court would enforce the decision of a sharia arbitrator.

My GUESS is they would. But I don’t know.

The BBC says:

"No-one knows how many Sharia courts there are in the country, and not all will follow such liberal interpretations of Sharia."

This is a statement of fact. The Brits don't know how many such "courts" there are and what brand of sharia law they apply.

If the decisions of some such tribunals is to be "enforceable with the full power of the [British] judicial system, through the county courts or High Court" then it is important that the Brits should know what brand of sharia is being dispensed.

Usually civil courts are OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. Thus it is usually possible to know what sort of justice is being handed out. This MAY not be the case with sharia courts.

I think we should always be wary of "closed" courts. The best way of ensuring a reasonable standard of justice is open courts.

If the Times article is accurate, some of the cases being decided by British sharia "courts" go well beyond "religion-based marriage guidance."

Pericles,

You accuse me of "keep[ing] the fear threshold up."

If stating the obvious – namely that the Muslim proportion of the Australian population will rise and that sharia will play an increasing role in dispute resolution in Australia – is fear mongering then so be it?

As usual you are unable to address Islamic issues objectively Pericles. Instead you take refuge in verbal gymnastics, deliberate misconstruction of texts and implied accusations of "Mozzie bashing."

That's a lot of ifs and mays steven.