A general record of my ongoing battle with all forms of nonsense.

Wednesday 21 January 2009

In Defence of Allowing Sharia Courts

Arbitration can be used under UK law to resolve civil legal disputes.  Rather than go through the time and expense of taking your dispute through the courts, the parties can instead agree to go to an arbitrator.  

To begin arbitration, both parties have to agree to it.  Both parties sign a contract where they agree to abide by the decision of the chosen arbitrator.  The decision of the arbitrator may be a fair one; it may be an unfair one.  That risk is a cost you accept when choosing to enter into arbitration.  But there is also benefit - arbitration is often quicker, easier and cheaper than a lengthy court battle.

Sharia Courts operate in Britain as arbitration services.  

Deciding to enter into arbitration is a voluntary process – as is the method of arbitration.  If you and your neighbour wish to resolve your boundary dispute based upon a game of “who can fart the loudest” then I will consider you both to be fools.  

However, the fact that I consider you fools is irrelevant: your decision to enter into this strange form of arbitration is none of my business.  I therefore have no reason to legislate against it.

And if you choose of your own free will to divide the wealth left over from your marriage based upon the teachings of an illiterate medieval paedophile, then I will also think you a fool.  But like before; this is none of my business.  I therefore have no reason to legislate against it.

You can’t have freedom without the freedom to make daft decisions.

No comments: