Sharia law isn’t taking over Britain – it’s an inevitable legacy of its colonial legal history

C C

C C

Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy"
Valued Senior Member
But accordingly, [limited] parallel standards of a sort would still seem to be the case. They would just be falling out of an already existing approach still lingering from the bygone days of global empire. Now being applied locally to the cultural pluralism of current Britain itself. With these various "sub-ethic" structures deemed not a threat to undermining the overarching, native system of law (and no threat of carving the UK into independent communities).
- - - - - - - - - -

Sharia law isn’t taking over Britain – it’s an inevitable legacy of its colonial legal history
https://theconversation.com/sharia-...e-legacy-of-its-colonial-legal-history-267262

EXCERPTS (Femi Owolade): Such claims ignore two realities. First, that the English legal system is adaptive and capable of accommodating diversity. And second, that having multiple legal systems is – far from undermining British law – an inevitable legacy of Britain’s colonial history. Looking to that history, it should be no surprise that it is a feature of modern, multicultural Britain.

My research shows how British colonial administrators deliberately designed plural legal systems to sustain imperial rule. The colonial state recognised that it could not rule diverse populations by imposing English law on multicultural societies.

[...] In a postcolonial, multifaith society like Britain, legal pluralism is not a sign of a fragmented legal sovereignty – it’s an acknowledgement of social reality. The persistence of sharia in modern Britain reflects a society still negotiating how to govern cultural and religious difference through law, as the empire once did...
_
 
Last edited:
C C said:
But accordingly, [limited] parallel standards of a sort still seem to be the case. They are just falling out of an already existing approach still lingering from the bygone days of global empire. Now being applied locally to the cultural pluralism of current Britain itself. With these various "sub-ethic" structures deemed not a threat to undermining the overarching, native system of law (and no threat of carving the UK into independent communities).
- - - - - - - - - -

Sharia law isn’t taking over Britain – it’s an inevitable legacy of its colonial legal history
https://theconversation.com/sharia-...e-legacy-of-its-colonial-legal-history-267262

EXCERPTS: Such claims ignore two realities. First, that the English legal system is adaptive and capable of accommodating diversity. And second, that having multiple legal systems is – far from undermining British law – an inevitable legacy of Britain’s colonial history. Looking to that history, it should be no surprise that it is a feature of modern, multicultural Britain.

My research shows how British colonial administrators deliberately designed plural legal systems to sustain imperial rule. The colonial state recognised that it could not rule diverse populations by imposing English law on multicultural societies.

[...] In a postcolonial, multifaith society like Britain, legal pluralism is not a sign of a fragmented legal sovereignty – it’s an acknowledgement of social reality. The persistence of sharia in modern Britain reflects a society still negotiating how to govern cultural and religious difference through law, as the empire once did...
_
Click to expand...
Who is this fool? There is no "legal plurality" in the UK.

Religious groups are free to follow their own customs so long as they do not transgress the law of the land. And that is all. So for instance if muslims, or Jews, or Catholics, or Christian Scientists want to accept some form of moral adjudication on issues within their communities, from figures they respect, they can do it, but not if that conflicts with the legal rights and obligations of British citizens.

This is not "legal plurality", any more than any club membership whereby members voluntarily abide by club rules.

It has fuck-all to do with "an approach still lingering from bygone days of empire". It is the same in every country with a liberal democracy.
 
exchemist said:
Who is this fool?
Click to expand...

Femi Owolade (added a link in the OP).

Legal pluralism as currently defined is "weak stuff" that does just amount to allowing these communities to have their own quasi-administrative or advisory gatherings, with those being completely subservient to the national legal system of a country. Owolade's evaluation of it in the context of colonial history might seem to be the odd duck here. But it's not that unusual for today's scholars, who may routinely engage in analysis that is crouched in postcolonialism (the latter's many interpretative outlooks, theories and agenda).

Owolade: "There is no separate sharia legal system in the UK. What exist are sharia councils and the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal. The sharia councils have no statutory authority under English law. They may be used to resolve personal disputes such as marriage, divorce and inheritance. English law is capable of accommodating and regulating diverse legal practices without losing its sovereignty. Besides sharia councils, other faith-based arbitration bodies exist in Britain..."

Sharia law courts in the UK
https://legalpriority.co.uk/legal-advice/discover-how-many-sharia-law-courts-are-in-the-uk

KEY POINTS:
  • Sharia councils act as advisory bodies, not legally binding courts.
  • Estimates of their presence range from 30 to 85 across England and Wales.
  • All decisions must comply with UK legislation.
  • Reduced legal aid has increased reliance on these councils.
  • Legal Priority provides specialised support on related matters.
 
Last edited:
C C said:
Femi Owolade (added a link in the OP).

Legal pluralism as currently defined is "weak stuff" that does just amount to allowing these communities to have their own quasi-administrative or advisory gatherings, with those being completely subservient to the national legal system of a country. Owolade's evaluation of it in the context of colonial history might seem to be the odd duck here. But it's not that unusual for today's scholars, who may routinely engage in analysis that is crouched in postcolonialism (the latter's many interpretative outlooks, theories and agenda).

Owolade: "There is no separate sharia legal system in the UK. What exist are sharia councils and the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal. The sharia councils have no statutory authority under English law. They may be used to resolve personal disputes such as marriage, divorce and inheritance. English law is capable of accommodating and regulating diverse legal practices without losing its sovereignty. Besides sharia councils, other faith-based arbitration bodies exist in Britain..."

Sharia law courts in the UK
https://legalpriority.co.uk/legal-advice/discover-how-many-sharia-law-courts-are-in-the-uk

KEY POINTS:
  • Sharia councils act as advisory bodies, not legally binding courts.
  • Estimates of their presence range from 30 to 85 across England and Wales.
  • All decisions must comply with UK legislation.
  • Reduced legal aid has increased reliance on these councils.
  • Legal Priority provides specialised support on related matters.
Click to expand...
Well exactly. There is no official recognition of any law other than the law of England (or Scotland). There is nothing here connected with the colonial past. It’s just what any liberal democracy does. Catholics don’t recognise divorce. That’s up to them but the law of England does. Muslims can recognise a man having more than one wife amongst themselves, but only one will be recognised in English law. The rest have no conjugal status in law. Women have full equality before the law, regardless of any customs that may prevail in their communities. And so on.

There is no compromise on the applicability of the law of the land. This about advisory bodies is misleading. Advisory to whom? There is no advice given to any legal authority from any of these groups. They have no legal status whatsoever.
 
Wizard of Whatever said:
It's really a legacy of its immigration policy.
Click to expand...
There is no legacy of immigration policy here.

English and Scottish law are in this respect no different from the law in Switzerland, a country with no colonial past and little immigration, or from US law. People in all these countries are free to have religious or community leaders make rules for them if they wish to be bound by them (e.g. Jewish dietary laws, Amish cultural practices, etc.), but they can't legally impose them on people, nor can they make rules that contravene the law of the country.
 
Last edited:
exchemist said:
There is no legacy of immigration policy here.

English and Scottish law are in this respect no different from the law in Switzerland, a country with no colonial past and little immigration, or from US law. People in all these countries are free to have religious or community leaders make rules for them if they wish to be bound by them (e.g. Jewish dietary laws, Amish cultural practices, etc.), but they can't legally impose them on people, nor can they make rules that contravene the law of the country.
Click to expand...
You let in the people from half the world. That is your policy.
 
exchemist said:
Our law makes no special concessions to the religion or culture of immigrants. Oh, except that Sikhs don’t need to wear a hard hat on industrial sites.
Click to expand...
Do they sign a waiver and promise not to sue when a loose crane hook swings wild and splits their skull? I find this concession exceptional in its tolerance. If I was ever tempted to call UK a nanny state, that example would stop my tongue. ;)
 
TheVat said:
Do they sign a waiver and promise not to sue when a loose crane hook swings wild and splits their skull? I find this concession exceptional in its tolerance. If I was ever tempted to call UK a nanny state, that example would stop my tongue. ;)
Click to expand...
In the event of injury due to not wearing a hard hat because of their own headgear, no liability falls on the employer. But the injury must be one that would have been avoided had the Sikh worna hard-hat, not just any injury that unfortunately befalls them. Would a hard-hat have saved them from a wild swing of a crane hook?.;)

Anyhoo, the law already makes it clear, so no separate waiver required, although some employers probably get them to sign one for their own peace of mind.
Yeah, we're a tolerant bunch. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top