Those links don’t change my mind in the slightest. Let me first say though, that I consider myself a secularist, and hope that one day the UK will get its own First Amendment.

The two links from the NSS website you provided are a campaign for “One Law for All”. I agree that there should be “One Law for All”. And in fact there is. Sharia tribunals don’t interfere with this. Anyone can set up there own form of voluntary dispute resolution so long as all parties agree to it. For some Muslims, they use Sharia tribunals. Jews have the Beth Din courts. Football has a similar arbitration system. What is so hard to understand about this?

Now I agree that Sharia is discriminatory towards women. In fact, I haven’t come across a religion which doesn’t have parts which are morally offensive to me. However, if it’s voluntary, then what’s the problem? If Catholic Anne Widecombe thinks that her gender is inferior to men in the eyes of her god (she wouldn’t say that, but that’s what it comes down to), then that’s her choice. If people want to believe an offensive morality, then I’m okay with that (though I’ll try and defeat it in the marketplace of ideas). That is freedom of thought. And if the use of Sharia tribunals is involuntary in a lot of cases? Then that’s obviously wrong, but most things done involuntary are wrong. Why single out Sharia? This all just comes down to the issue of the burka all over again. If it’s forced, then that’s already illegal.

****

Remember, the NSS is a special interest group. It is entirely within their interests to exaggerate and misrepresent a situation in order to further their cause. And they have done so in this situation.

Notice how they attack the Sharia tribunals, but not the Jewish Beth Din courts which have been around for far longer. I am willing to bet if they had specifically attacked the Beth Din ones instead, they’d have been called out for antisemitism. But because they’ve attacked the Sharia ones, most people don’t bat an eyelid, because Muslims are the primary “Other” in the West in the 21st Century so far.

My main problem is that the questions muddle moral issues with rational science with liberal values. Supervision of animal rights and abortion limits are moral concerns. Acceptance of evolution is a rational conclusion that is accommodated by mainstream religion. Justification for libel laws is a political concern argued around liberal principles.

Skeptics are a new political movement, and I share many of their concerns. Before I join them, I expect a bit more coherence.

“Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece
More
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm

All religions try to supersede secular authority, (another -horrific- instance is the Vatican & Catholic elites handling of child abuse) which is why 5. needs to say religious law and not sharia because that is singling out Islam for different treatment which is not something any sceptical person should engage in.

Can you elaborate on question 7 please? What is the story behind it being included?

“Islamic law has been officially adopted in Britain”
“The government has quietly sanctioned the powers”
“Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi … said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.” (in fact he didn’t say he had taken advantage – that’s why it isn’t a quote).

And it’s factually wrong:
“Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.”

They still do – all arbitration or Alternative Dispute Resolution requires parties to freely volunteer for it (except where compelled by English courts).

And so what if:
“… women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.”

…so long as they freely agree to do so?

Shatterface rightly said that,

so long as both parties accept it *willingly* (and I think this is the matter of concern: to what extent is a party operating under social pressure within a closed community genuinely free to choose?) and so long as it doesn’t trump secular law it’s really not the State’s business if people choose to settle disputes by consulting the I-Ching or goats’ entrails.

Those are important points. On the other hand, if a party is under such pressure the question of what decision-making process they are subject to seems moot (iow, it is not sharia or any other system that is the problem in itself, it is the social pressure).

For outcomes to be legally binding, arbitration must satisfy general principles. Alex @ 35 is correct.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/campaignagainstsharialawinbritai.html

http://www.secularism.org.uk/107182.html

I think its important not to consider a single criterion on which to base the scientific contribution to policy about abortion. Technology may improve to allow a foetus to survive if born earlier, does that mean we should reduce the maximum term for abortion under normal circumstances? Not necessarily. There are other factors to consider: Ethically the position of the mother must be a factor but limiting ourselves to what science (not just medicine) can bring to the debate, what about the foetus? As it develops we may be able to determine what degree of of pain it can experience, its level of awareness and ability to suffer. Shouldn’t these be factored into evidence-based, ethically balanced policy making?

Oh God, that sounds too much like a lecture. Sorry, it’s a symptom of doing too much work (ie. any).’

Indeed. Sweden went further and actually did it until the 70s. And it is perfectly plausible from a means-end scientific angle that sterilising the worse performers in a population will lead to things like better educational outcomes. That is why you need some guiding moral values to tell you when something is repugnant to humanity. Science isn’t going to do that for you.

A quote from that website:

In arriving at its decision, the Tribunal shall take into account the Laws of England and Wales and the recognised Schools of Islamic Sacred Law.

And here are the rules of the Football Association:

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/Rules_Regs/Rules_of_the_association_pg91-127.ashx/Rules_of_the_association_pg91-127.pdf

This arbitration isn’t anything to get worked up about.

The Act mentioned in that article is from 1996 i.e. when the Tories were in power.

Sharia law in the UK is state-sponsored in the sense that Sharia court rulings become legally-binding: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece – many people find this disturbing.

Sigh, That’s no different to what people have been saying. You obviously haven’t read the article. Here are some quotes:

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.”

Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.

Here is the website with some info on why alternative dispute resolution may be useful for some people:

http://www.matribunal.com/alt_dispute_res.html

You have fallen for a typical newspaper scare story. All the relevant info is in that story necessary to discern the truth, but the “journalists” have muddied the water a fair bit by trying to make it seem as bad as possible. Some in the Times and other “quality” papers are like that. As are most stories in the tabloids.

That’s precisely how I interpreted you, I just pointed out the obvious fact that the age at which a foetus can survive outside the womb is likely to be reduced as technology improves, therefore if we accept this ‘scientific consensus’ as a limit at which abortions can be carried out we restrict the woman’s choice further.

Unless you believe this restriction is ‘progressive’ I don’t see your point.

It’s about the consensus on the evidence for the point in time at which a foetus could survive outside the womb if born prematurely – as referenced in this discussion here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7059169.stm – this fits within a wider debate about the point at which we believe a foetus has become fully human.

Oh, indeed. But the question seem to imply that “time limits should…be determined” by that consensus. If that’s true – and slap me down if I’ve got it wrong – it makes the assumption that time limits should be aligned with viability, which isn’t “evidence-based“, but a moral judgement. It’d seems unfair – unless, again, I’ve subjected it to a ferocious misreading – to suggest that disagreement reflects a failure of scepticism.

More broadly – while we do think that these 10 issues are worth quizzing MPs about, we haven’t set out to push people towards a rigid set of policy positions. The over-riding aim is to collate information on candidates’ views and track records so that skeptics (who by their nature tend to be averse to following anyone’s ‘agenda’) can make their own choices.

The reference to the “medical consensus” in discussions of abortion isn’t – at least in my reading – a question about doctors and scientists using their scientific expertise to tell us what’s right and wrong in principle. It’s about the consensus on the evidence for the point in time at which a foetus could survive outside the womb if born prematurely – as referenced in this discussion here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7059169.stm – this fits within a wider debate about the point at which we believe a foetus has become fully human. I agree that discussions of empirical evidence are only a part of that picture.

Okay, I’m against making Sharia judgements *legally binding*, which is what I meant by ‘Backing up Sharia decisions with state sanctions would be a different matter.’

Still not with you on ‘deciding-abortion-time-limits-on-the-advice-of-scientists’ though. It isn’t a scientific question, and if it *was* the ‘science’ (in as much as it describes the life expectancy of a premature child) would become *more* restrictive (i.e. less permissive) as technology improves, not less.

And that’s before we even consider the increasingly moralistic interventions doctors are making into social policy.

You write that “it might be useful to try to get a picture of where MPs stand on these questions“. Fair ’nuff, but what I object to is the assumption that this will determine “their level of commitment to evidence-based policy-making“. I mean, the ethics of abortion aren’t determined by science; to quote Russell: “science enables us to know the means to any chosen end but it does not help us to determine what ends we shall pursue” (Education For A Difficult World).

A parallel: in the early 1900s, some scientists/thinkers were very enthusiastic about eugenics, realising the effects that associated practices could have on a society. They might have been able to show – with thorough, evidence-based research – that, say, sterilising the “feeble-minded” would be likely to lessen strains of illness, but that wouldn’t necessarily make it the “sceptical” or moral thing to do.

Oh God, that sounds too much like a lecture. Sorry, it’s a symptom of doing too much work (ie. any).

Yes, I’m a member of PPUK, but as yet we haven’t decided on who should stand nor where

Sharia law in the UK is state-sponsored in the sense that Sharia court rulings become legally-binding: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece – many people find this disturbing.

The reports I’ve seen suggests that, in practice, the Sharia model fails worst when dealing with victims of domestic violence. Being subjected to long-term abuse can seriously hinder a person’s psychological autonomy – and thus their ability to make free choices – and then there’s also the issue of whether people are being properly informed before agreeing to go with the religious court system. The concern is that people who have suffered domestic violence may be pressurised into accepting a model of justice under which they have fewer rights and protections than they would have done under the secular courts. Some more background here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7783627.stm and here: http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Sharia-courts-set-to-bring.4573444.jp

More broadly, one of the main reasons we wrote this piece was to encourage people to come and look at what we’ve done with the site so far, and help build it into something that does address the issues that really matter.

@Dnotice – did I read somewhere that you’re going to be standing for the Pirate Party in the General Election?!

Choosing a Sharia court is opting out of the secular state institution, not giving state endorsement to Sharia. Again, that’s free association. Backing up Sharia decisions with state sanctions would be a different matter.

‘Abortion, likewise, won’t be seen as a “skeptic” issue by everyone, but again, it certainly is seen that way by some people, and it seems difficult to see how anyone could object to people wanting to find out where MPs stand on that issue.’

I agree I want to know what my MP thinks but linking this issue to a medical consensus is silly. The only thing that the medical profession could add to the argument is around the age at which a baby could survive outside the womb (often given as a ‘rational’ limit to which abortion is permissable). Since that age is likely to reduce with medical advances that narrows the window for termination, reducing the woman’s choice.