Religious courts
I've been shocked by the hysterical reaction to the Archbishop of Canterbury's thoughtful comments about recognising the work done by religious courts in this country.
These appear to be community based systems for settling civic disputes. As I understand it the Orthodox Jews have had their own Beth Din courts in place for 100 years, and the Muslims already use Sharia courts to arbitrate over civil matters.
Of course, the Church of England has its own Consistory Courts, one in each diocese, and their most public function is to deal with errant clergy. What you may not know is that these same courts issue 'faculties' to churches - permission to carry out changes to the fabric of church buildings. Indeed, Anglican churches are exempt from the normal Council planning application process. A faculty, which is often much tougher to achieve than planning permission, is the legal alternative.
I think we need to know more about the Jewish and Sharia religious courts, exactly what their legal status is, and the kinds of matters they tend to deal with. The use of them is, I understand, purely voluntary. I would like to know what safeguards are in place to prevent people being placed under cultural pressure to use them. I would like to know whether cultural and religious pressures prevent people from appealing to the mainstream legal system if they are not happy with the outcome. I'd like to know whether the rights of women under British law are upheld in spirit as well as in the letter by the courts.
This debate is beginning to emerge through all the nonsense. But isn't that exactly what the Archbishop was asking?
On the media response, Jeremy Hargreaves gives a thoughtful analysis of the reaction to the Archbishop's comments.
Comments: 1
: 0
I am afraid I do not agree with you on this.
Williams tried the politicians technique of recording a radio interview before he gave the speech. The interview was very clear that he was was not only saying that there are already internal religious laws for settling disputes but that when it cames to some issues, such as divorce, there should be the option of opting out of English Law and using Sharia Law to resolve it. This is very messy because we are in effect saying that we are using a different legal basis for resolving a dispute under English law.
When he came to give the real speech he modified (or maybe confused) the issue by not being specific and using florid academic rhetoric that allows confusion. He also said in the interview, in plain English, that "Saying there is one law for everyone is a bit of a danger."
He is entirely wrong on this subject and if , as you argue, these alternatives (Sharia Courts and Beth Din) exist then why even raise the issue.
I am afraid he is guilty of huge incompetence in allowing the subject to be raised in the way he as, especially as it has now emerged that he was advised not to give the speech.
There may be a legitimate debate to be had but his academic exuberance has shrouded that debate in confusion.
Incidentally, you are not quite right about 'faculties'. They do not replace council planning. There is 'ecclesiastical exemption' in the planning laws but only insofar as it relates to listed building consent. In fact the whole process can make even the smallest change, such as putting up a new noticeboard, terribly complicated. Not that this is a bad thing because if listed building consent is not in force then there clearly needs to be some other form of control. Equally, if the church was not under planning control then it could not be under building control - who have some responsibility for ensuring buildings are built as required.
For all categories