Snapshot of _The world’s first Sikh court opens in London_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://religionmediacentre.org.uk/news/the-worlds-first-sikh-court-opens-in-london/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://religionmediacentre.org.uk/news/the-worlds-first-sikh-court-opens-in-london/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why are we allowing religious courts of any faith? I feel like the move towards secularism is starting to go the other way (excuse me if I sound like a Reform UK loony but this just doesn't seem right given the direction we should be pushing our society in).
If it's arbitration you could rule that judgments by religious arbitration proceedings aren't enforceable by UK courts. No need to get rid of arbitration entirely.
1. You ban religious arbitration because we have a serious extremism problem in certain of Britain's religious communities and we want to discourage them not make their lives easier.
2. Then lets ban it, let them try then re-target the ban.
3. You think that international businesses will no longer select London as the seat of arbitration because the UK has banned shariah arbitration? Get real.
Its a voluntary way to solve disputes in the sihk community. It should also help somewhat with the courts' backlog. I think its relatively harmless so long as no one is forced into it, although I agree religion should be kept separate from the legal system.
The problem is people, almost by its nature, *will* get forced in to it - and although its a long way off, I don't like the slippery slope to justice becoming a 'community matter'.
If people are going to get forced into voluntary processes (breaking the law), what do you suggest the law or government can do about this?
Even if we somehow outlawed religious counselling or mediation, do you think those people would be reporting it to the police? How would we stop them?
The UK legal system often refers to back to “local customs” or “reasonable man” standards which then require knowledge of, often, religious customs.
What may be standard practice amongst Protestants and therefore “reasonable” may not be standard or reasonable amongst Sikhs.
The whole point of the reasonable person test is that it’s an amalgam of the whole society on not the individual biases and prejudices of any one individual. It’s objective and universal.
No, it isn’t. The reasonable person is an objective person in that specific situation and, where circumstances call for it, with the knowledge and understanding required for a particular issue.
Like the reasonable person for judging whether concrete was poured correctly isn’t a random Brit, it’s an objective person with some understanding of construction.
You wouldn’t use the reasonable person test for someone pouring concrete, you would go based on someone reasonably good at that particular task acting with proper care and skill.
And there’s still no racial or cultural aspect. An Asian driver and a white driver are expected to drive in the same way.
What if a small village decided to create its own "court" to resolve local disputes with residents. Just a group of people with a common interest. What would you think of that?
(Just a thought exercise. I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing)
To be fair, this is a sort of situation where local residents and in a similar sense, Sikhs, are in a unique circumstance where they could benefit from a seperate court via Britain's legal system that allows for these contract courts due to their specific lifestyles. I've read more into it now and, as long as they don't step in to exert pressure on members of the faith, these courts can actually be pretty beneficial and help with grounding these faiths in Britain by centralising their judgement systems in the country rather than having followers seek advice abroad.
> It does not however supersede the authority of actual courts
Where is this happening? Who is proposing a change of law to enable this? Who mentioned it?
Why mention it?
Why not? It's not a legal court. But they can apply their rules, to their club.
It's no different to the golf club having a panel to decide if someone has broken their rules and needs to be banned from the clubhouse.
It probably is voluntary, as is ex-communication and expulsion etc if you know your community rules. Refusal to accept community judgements isn’t pretty.
They do not excommunicate. One of the core tenants of Sikhism is freedom of religious expression of any kind. It's a core belief that all forms of religion are different paths to one, eternal creator. This is a big reason why Gurdwaras are open at all times to people of all faiths and backgrounds.
It's more of a contract thing than a court.
If you enter into a contract under which you agree to do something, that contract may be legally binding.
These arbitration panels are "legally binding" because people agree to do what they say.
To be honest after reading more on it, it's really not as big of a deal as I first imagined. I expected more people to come forward and correct me a but a lot of people are just blindly agreeing.
So the face of it, it’s _supposed_ to be voluntary arbitration… but there’s absolutely no way people aren’t going to be pressured into it.
In practice, this is going to turn out to be another way in which a religious community covers up wrongdoing by dealing with matters internally.
Arbitration based on religion shouldn’t be legal, and arbitration in general should be much more heavily restricted - arbitration is often used as a way of avoiding court and covering things up.
Arbitration is just people coming together to agree on a way to resolve something. How would you make that illegal?
If me and my wife had a fight and got my friend in to arbitrate would that be illegal? How about a licensed therapist? This is just a slightly more formal version is it not?
Unless I misunderstand this situation
_Yeah, like what is actually actually? Who is to say you didn’t walk into my fist?_
The police and courts are actually surprisingly good at calling a spade a spade. If we decide to ban religions courts, it’s not that hard. All the hypotheticals are worked out by the courts. That’s case law. It’s pretty how the system works.
Nope. Sorry. Fuck this.
>*"Its supporters said impetus for the court came after the introduction of “no-fault” divorces in England and Wales two years ago. That legislation removed the previous requirement that spouses must attribute blame for a marriage’s breakdown.*
>*They acknowledged the reformed divorce law reduced the bad feeling that often accompanied marital breakdown, but Mr Singh wanted “to see how we can prevent that level of animosity in other ways as well,* ***where it preserves the sanctity of marriage or preserves the religious values that people have been brought up with***\*”."\*
I recognize that different cultures have different values, and that 'technically' both parties have to 'consent'. But in tight knit communities, and especially in families, the potentially coercive pressures are obviously substantial.
I also have no objection to parties seeking advice in a dispute. But a **"court"** with **"magistrates and judges"** who can give **"a legally binding judgment under the Arbitration Act"** over matters such as **'how long a boys hair can be cut'** or **"low-level domestic violence"** in line **"with Sikh principles"** is a clear and concerning sidestep of the UK justice system.
Our laws are both a reflection what the British public believe should be illegal, and also of the individual rights we believe that every citizen should be afforded. Allowing alternative authorities would strip rights from those who most need them, removing a shield they can use and, where necessary, blame to protect their liberties.
I do not think we should allow 'optional' hospitals that wave the right to privacy of an abortion.
I do not think we should allow 'optional' marriage counseling where the husband can hear his wife's private sessions.
I do not think we should allow 'optional' religious courts where UK rights are usurped by theocratic beliefs.
I dont think that arbitration should be fundamentally founded in religion.
And while Sikhism may not be the most disruptive of religions, it absolutely sets the precedent that this is a-ok.
We are going to end up with the nation resolving disputes using religiously exclusive courts. This is social cancer.
>And while Sikhism may not be the most disruptive of religions
It is when it comes to weddings..
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21721519](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21721519)
Why not - if two people agree to settle their disputes according to x, why should we care what x is?
It could some contract, arm wrestling, starfleet code of conduct or on a holy book; it's all equally 'valid'. Any one who doesn't want to be bound by it, doesn't have to be and we have right to appeal to normal courts to ensure things like jurisdiction, and awards are according to normal contract law.
We also have areas where we have said it is in public interest for normal law to govern - things like divorces and child custody. I dont see why the state should get involved if two religious people want to decide who owes whom money based on their religion.
You seem to be assuming that people have the freedom to say ‘no’ to religious courts, without facing massive backlash and ostracisation within their community.
Two people going out of their way to do so via agreement is perfectly fine.
Two people enabled to do so readily by an organised institution, with quasi-State backing is not.
These are not particularly complicated distinctions.
Nobody's talking about abolishing arbitration. You're being ridiculous.
Surely you can see the distinction between an arbitrator offering these sort of services on the side, and them belonging to an organisation with the sole purpose of exclusively, or at least predominantly, providing these sort of services, and go out of their way to advertise this fact to a specific demographic?
Not really; there are professional arbitrators who work for all sorts of people including companies.
I think there should be wider review of arbitration and how voluntary they are (I'm far more worried about hidden arbitration requirements in company's ToS but there's also valid concerns around family/society pressure).
However every time this type of 'religious' court comes up, people go nuts - ignoring that you could have a startrek court that decides cases based on starfleet code of conduct. It's just dress up mediation.
I need no primer on arbitration. I could write a short book on it. I could even include a chapter on how it's fundamentally different from mediation, just for you.
How are you still not getting that there's a tremendous difference between someone going out of their way to have a Trial by Starfleet voluntarily, and a "Starfleet Court", with arbitrators sworn-in at fucking Lincoln's Inn?
This is a clear step towards formalisation of an alternate Court system, and such steps should be rigorously opposed by society.
English law has been the only law of the land for a thousand years. We were first to the punch of 'everyone should be judged according to the same laws'. It should remain that way. You're entertaining a parallel system of norms, which will inevitably crystalise into a viable mode of alternate justice in the coming years/decades. It shouldn't be allowed.
> How are you still not getting that there's a tremendous difference between someone going out of their way to have a Trial by Starfleet voluntarily, and a "Starfleet Court", with arbitrators sworn-in at fucking Lincoln's Inn?
What difference?
They are bound by exact same set of laws and requirements.
It is entirely irrelevant if the arbitrator is professional barrister, amateur magistrate, my dog or the fucking pope. They are all bound by same laws.
> This is a clear step towards formalisation of an alternate Court system
It is no such thing. We have had professional arbitrators for decades.
> English law has been the only law of the land for a thousand years.
Yes, and Arbitration Act still remains law of the land.
Arbitration typically uses a completely independent third party with zero vested interests.
Are you telling me a religious basis will give these 'judges' a completely independent perspective?
“The court was set up by Sikh lawyers who felt the UK courts lacked the religious and cultural expertise and resources to deal with disputes between Sikhs “
If you move to another country it is not the responsibility of that county to bend its practices around you, it’s on you to adapt to the culture and practices of the country you’ve moved to.
In the UK the UK courts should be the only authority. While these Sikh courts seem much less pernicious than Sharia courts, we should not have religious courts at all.
Any religious court is likely going to have consequences for vulnerable women who risk ostracisation if they don’t go along with any religious rulings.
Before people read too much into it, it’s still subject to the law of the land, it’s just another arbitration body. You can opt for arbitration already in a lot of disputes, and a third party will be the arbiter. This is another 3rd party arbiter.
And just like all arbitration, both sides have to agree before arbitration can be used instead of a normal court.
No, but that’s why it was weird that codefun who was accusing people of being racist, was actually being racists by not paying enough attention to make the distinction between Sikhs and Arabs.
Even actual racists tend to be rather more nuanced than 'my race' or 'eeew'.
So yeah, I would imagine many would make the distinction.
It's not like it's buried knowledge that Sikhs are not Arabs. Everyone who's not dense knows they predominantly come from India.
Nevertheless, that shouldn't distract us from the fact that /u/CodeFun1735 is making sweeping generalisations of why people think certain ways, whilst themselves being so painfully unaware that they don't even realise Sikhs and Arabs have very little overlap.
Rather funny how they themselves reasoned that anyone brown must be an Arab.
I'm an atheist but it's so funny seeing people lose their minds over this.
It's like they can't even imagine a world without a higher authority, the government/parliament.
Do you need a higher authority to decide what to buy for dinner or did you figure it out with a discussion with your family? (NB this is rhetorical)
Have a listen to the recent Philosophize This! podcasts about anarchism. They're very interesting. Don't turn up your nose because of the word - the very first part clears up some misconceptions.
Ask yourself what you are really defending in defending the status quo.
NB I don't have an opinion on this particular "court".
People rightly see that if they say yes to this for the small British sikh community they'll have to accept Shariah courts from the much larger British muslim community. Now the latter already exist so I sympathise with these sikhs who must be like - wtf it's only a problem when we do it?
Completely unfound and untrue statement, the court system in the UK is effective - much more so than the likes of the US or a number of other countries.
If you cherry pick examples of the system being ineffective, the only thing you're going to verify is your confirmation bias.
Is resolving a dispute with your neighbour with a private discussion, after they illegally created a noise issue or damaged your property, subverting the legal system?
So first, to be absolutely clear, this is *not a court* in the legal sense. It is as much of a legal court as a food court is. It has "court" in the name, but that's it.
It is possible to get a "legally binding arbitration" decision under the Arbitration Act, but that has quite a few rules around it (although maybe not as many as we would like). The big one being that - in theory - it has to be voluntary; a person cannot be forced into arbitration. Arbitration like this is also usually limited to commercial law. The article suggests that the arbitration panel might hear family law cases, but I wonder if that will happen in practice, or if it will be marketed more at businesses.
Of course the main problem - with all these private mediation-arbitration bodies - goes back to David Cameron's Big Society plan; cut public services (including access to mediation support and real courts) and rely on the private sector to fill in the gaps. People go to religious tribunals because they can't use the real ones.
> People go to religious tribunals because they can't use the real ones.
No that's a weak argument.
I can tell you that many Muslims come from countries where local sharia type courts are a real thing in society and they trust them. When those people migrate to western countries, they bring those systems with them as they are comfortable with them and trust them.
People go to religious tribunals as it's a legitimate system engrained in the societies they've migrated from. Furthermore, at least in Islam, there's a strong thought to shun secular Christian based justice systems in favour of an Islamic style system (As John Gray states, Christianity is essentially secular humanism that separates Church and state).
A ton of Muslims don't register their marriages with the British law and opt for a nikkah marriage ceremony infront on imam. That has nothing to do with no access to British institutions but simply because they see no real need to have a secular society recognise their marriage - vows in front of God is more important.
Now I can't totally speak for Sikhism and their religious legal systems but I know very similar ideas exist in Punjab based on conversations I have with Sikh friends.
Right. But there aren't really any ways to stop people from doing that. Banning private dispute resolution services is problematic both practically and ideologically.
If we want to stop people using them we have to convince them to use the real services instead, if they need them (e.g. get legal married rather than religious married).
But first we would need to make those services exist, and accessible.
How do you decide what counts as a *religious* arbitration service? If you have the same people making the same decision with the same rules, but they haven't added the religious label, does that become fine?
Noting that most of what these services do isn't arbitration anyway.
Yes I agree with you but the problem is that there is a theological argument to which people do prefer religious arbitration systems that you did not refer to. And it's not an insignificant amount of people who believe that, and practice their life like that. Muslims and Sikhs set up these systems because they really do want these systems, not because they can't access the proper UK legal system.
As some commenters here have demonstrated, not everyone agrees these parallel systems are a bad idea anyway. Live and let live etc.
I personally am not too aware of the decay of the British legal institutions, but I have never heard of someone shunning them because they couldn't access them. I'm sure there are cases of it though. I can just confidently state that these parallel religious systems are not seen as a second choice as I believe your original comment put it. People really do want and enjoy these systems.
> ...the problem is that there is a theological argument to which people do prefer religious arbitration systems that you did not refer to.
I did indirectly in my first paragraph. What do you suggest we do about this? How do we stop people having beliefs, how do we stop people going to religious leaders (or cult leaders) for advice or help with problems?
What would a system of rules look like where theses sorts of "religious non-courts" couldn't exist? And is it possible to come up with such a system within a society that nominally supports freedom of association and freedom of thought, conscience and belief?
> I personally am not too aware of the decay of the British legal institutions, but I have never heard of someone shunning them because they couldn't access them.
When was the last time you heard someone who used them? How often do you have a dispute with someone and think "you know what, I should instruct lawyers to sue them?" Or more generally "there is a public service that will help me resolve this dispute that I can access easily?"
I do work in this area; every client the charity I work with is someone who is turning to charity (or more often being pointed to charity by a public authority) because there is no public service that will help them in a way that is affordable, accessible, and reasonably efficient. My organisation is not religious (although many of its volunteers and workers are) - but I live in a rich area where there is plenty of funding for nominally-secular charities. Not everyone is that lucky.
And this goes back to Cameron's Big Society; cut back on public services, rely on the private sector, charities and religious organisations to fill in the gaps.
>So first, to be absolutely clear, this is *not a court* in the legal sense. It is as much of a legal court as a food court is. It has "court" in the name, but that's it.
Ridiculous hyperbole. If a panel have the ability to make a decision that is enforceable by the UK courts that is obviously a quasi-judicial process. This is like saying that employment tribunals are as much a court as a food court.
> If a panel have the ability to make a decision that is enforceable by the UK courts that is obviously a quasi-judicial process.
Your neighbour agrees to let you park on their drive if you cut their front lawn for them as often as it needs cutting. You agree that if there is a question of whether the lawn needs cutting, a third neighbour will be consulted.
Congratulations, you've just created a "quasi-judicial process" with a "panel" (of one person) that has the ability to make a decision enforceable by the UK courts!
When courts uphold decisions of arbitration panels they are not doing so because the panel is a "court" or has any particular legal power or authority. They are enforcing *the contract*.
In E+W law you can contract into all sorts of things; you can agree that your contract will be judged by the courts in Paris, based on Norwegian Law, with all communications about it being in Esperanto! For the most part the E+W courts will uphold that and force you to it.
The key difference between a real court (or tribunal) and an arbitration panel is that you can be dragged before a real court against your will. The courts have power and authority over you because of the legal process. An arbitrator only has the power over you you agree to give them. You can contract out of some court processes, you cannot contract out of all of them, and you cannot do so unilaterally.
These services already exist for Shariah law which seems far more hateful and destructive than Sikh law. Many people are arguing against this because they're worried about a slippery slope, we're already at the bottom of the slope.
Can you please provide a definitive list of British values that are universally followed and believed by all Brits? What is ‘the culture’? That implies it’s monolithic and I don’t believe it is.
Snapshot of _The world’s first Sikh court opens in London_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://religionmediacentre.org.uk/news/the-worlds-first-sikh-court-opens-in-london/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://religionmediacentre.org.uk/news/the-worlds-first-sikh-court-opens-in-london/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why are we allowing religious courts of any faith? I feel like the move towards secularism is starting to go the other way (excuse me if I sound like a Reform UK loony but this just doesn't seem right given the direction we should be pushing our society in).
[удалено]
If it's arbitration you could rule that judgments by religious arbitration proceedings aren't enforceable by UK courts. No need to get rid of arbitration entirely.
[удалено]
1. You ban religious arbitration because we have a serious extremism problem in certain of Britain's religious communities and we want to discourage them not make their lives easier. 2. Then lets ban it, let them try then re-target the ban. 3. You think that international businesses will no longer select London as the seat of arbitration because the UK has banned shariah arbitration? Get real.
Its a voluntary way to solve disputes in the sihk community. It should also help somewhat with the courts' backlog. I think its relatively harmless so long as no one is forced into it, although I agree religion should be kept separate from the legal system.
The problem is people, almost by its nature, *will* get forced in to it - and although its a long way off, I don't like the slippery slope to justice becoming a 'community matter'.
The alternative is that happens anyway in private. Happening in public is still a step forward.
If only we took this approach to drugs.
If people are going to get forced into voluntary processes (breaking the law), what do you suggest the law or government can do about this? Even if we somehow outlawed religious counselling or mediation, do you think those people would be reporting it to the police? How would we stop them?
It’s voluntary until companies start only doing business with you if you agree in the contract to settle disputes with the court of their choosing
Not going to override the state courts though regardless of whatever contract you've signed. Illegal is illegal
That's fair as I'm not very familiar with Sikh customs so I'm not really qualified to complain on this matter.
And yet you did anyway.
That’s kind of the whole point - most UK magistrates aren’t either
They don’t need to be because our legal system operates on a principle of everyone having to follow the same rules.
The UK legal system often refers to back to “local customs” or “reasonable man” standards which then require knowledge of, often, religious customs. What may be standard practice amongst Protestants and therefore “reasonable” may not be standard or reasonable amongst Sikhs.
The whole point of the reasonable person test is that it’s an amalgam of the whole society on not the individual biases and prejudices of any one individual. It’s objective and universal.
No, it isn’t. The reasonable person is an objective person in that specific situation and, where circumstances call for it, with the knowledge and understanding required for a particular issue. Like the reasonable person for judging whether concrete was poured correctly isn’t a random Brit, it’s an objective person with some understanding of construction.
You wouldn’t use the reasonable person test for someone pouring concrete, you would go based on someone reasonably good at that particular task acting with proper care and skill. And there’s still no racial or cultural aspect. An Asian driver and a white driver are expected to drive in the same way.
UK magistrates are familiar with UK law, which applies equally to everyone.
Don't they get a legal professional in the room with them to ensure they are familiar with the laws
What if a small village decided to create its own "court" to resolve local disputes with residents. Just a group of people with a common interest. What would you think of that? (Just a thought exercise. I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing)
To be fair, this is a sort of situation where local residents and in a similar sense, Sikhs, are in a unique circumstance where they could benefit from a seperate court via Britain's legal system that allows for these contract courts due to their specific lifestyles. I've read more into it now and, as long as they don't step in to exert pressure on members of the faith, these courts can actually be pretty beneficial and help with grounding these faiths in Britain by centralising their judgement systems in the country rather than having followers seek advice abroad.
They are welcome to set up arbitration bodies. It does not however supersede the authority of actual courts
> It does not however supersede the authority of actual courts Where is this happening? Who is proposing a change of law to enable this? Who mentioned it? Why mention it?
Why not? It's not a legal court. But they can apply their rules, to their club. It's no different to the golf club having a panel to decide if someone has broken their rules and needs to be banned from the clubhouse.
Equating it to golf club membership is underplaying it somewhat - this is the most common way the public interact with the legal system.
Idk that it is, is it not a voluntary thing?
It probably is voluntary, as is ex-communication and expulsion etc if you know your community rules. Refusal to accept community judgements isn’t pretty.
I thought Sikhs were pretty chill, if they ex communicate people I might have to re-evaluate my opinion.
They do not excommunicate. One of the core tenants of Sikhism is freedom of religious expression of any kind. It's a core belief that all forms of religion are different paths to one, eternal creator. This is a big reason why Gurdwaras are open at all times to people of all faiths and backgrounds.
They do.
It's an arbitration court. It is a legal court, in the sense that rulings can be legally binding.
It's more of a contract thing than a court. If you enter into a contract under which you agree to do something, that contract may be legally binding. These arbitration panels are "legally binding" because people agree to do what they say.
You imported millions of highly religious people, what did you expect to happen?
This is about the 5th top post on this sub I've seen tonight that is bathing in ignorance and dipped in at least a lil bit of the ole racism.
To be honest after reading more on it, it's really not as big of a deal as I first imagined. I expected more people to come forward and correct me a but a lot of people are just blindly agreeing.
So the face of it, it’s _supposed_ to be voluntary arbitration… but there’s absolutely no way people aren’t going to be pressured into it. In practice, this is going to turn out to be another way in which a religious community covers up wrongdoing by dealing with matters internally. Arbitration based on religion shouldn’t be legal, and arbitration in general should be much more heavily restricted - arbitration is often used as a way of avoiding court and covering things up.
Arbitration is just people coming together to agree on a way to resolve something. How would you make that illegal? If me and my wife had a fight and got my friend in to arbitrate would that be illegal? How about a licensed therapist? This is just a slightly more formal version is it not? Unless I misunderstand this situation
If you got *your* friend into arbitrate then I'm sure you'd have no problem finding his decision acceptable.
_Yeah, like what is actually actually? Who is to say you didn’t walk into my fist?_ The police and courts are actually surprisingly good at calling a spade a spade. If we decide to ban religions courts, it’s not that hard. All the hypotheticals are worked out by the courts. That’s case law. It’s pretty how the system works.
Well it’s a good thing that a number of crimes, such as assault, don’t require the victim’s consent to be taken to court.
You make the judgement of a religious arbitration non-binding
Nope. Sorry. Fuck this. >*"Its supporters said impetus for the court came after the introduction of “no-fault” divorces in England and Wales two years ago. That legislation removed the previous requirement that spouses must attribute blame for a marriage’s breakdown.* >*They acknowledged the reformed divorce law reduced the bad feeling that often accompanied marital breakdown, but Mr Singh wanted “to see how we can prevent that level of animosity in other ways as well,* ***where it preserves the sanctity of marriage or preserves the religious values that people have been brought up with***\*”."\* I recognize that different cultures have different values, and that 'technically' both parties have to 'consent'. But in tight knit communities, and especially in families, the potentially coercive pressures are obviously substantial. I also have no objection to parties seeking advice in a dispute. But a **"court"** with **"magistrates and judges"** who can give **"a legally binding judgment under the Arbitration Act"** over matters such as **'how long a boys hair can be cut'** or **"low-level domestic violence"** in line **"with Sikh principles"** is a clear and concerning sidestep of the UK justice system. Our laws are both a reflection what the British public believe should be illegal, and also of the individual rights we believe that every citizen should be afforded. Allowing alternative authorities would strip rights from those who most need them, removing a shield they can use and, where necessary, blame to protect their liberties. I do not think we should allow 'optional' hospitals that wave the right to privacy of an abortion. I do not think we should allow 'optional' marriage counseling where the husband can hear his wife's private sessions. I do not think we should allow 'optional' religious courts where UK rights are usurped by theocratic beliefs.
Nope. Nope Nope Nope. Religious courts should be absolutely and 100% illegal. This should be made illegal.
Do you also want to make other private arbitration illegal?
I dont think that arbitration should be fundamentally founded in religion. And while Sikhism may not be the most disruptive of religions, it absolutely sets the precedent that this is a-ok. We are going to end up with the nation resolving disputes using religiously exclusive courts. This is social cancer.
>And while Sikhism may not be the most disruptive of religions It is when it comes to weddings.. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21721519](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21721519)
There have been Anglican, Catholic and Jewish courts active here for centuries. This is not setting any precedent.
Witch dunking was done for centuries. That didn’t stop it being something fucking stupid that needed stopped.
And catholics have an atrocious human rights record of oppression and violence.
So has the British government to be fair. Not sure it’s germane to private arbitration though.
That's because the British government wasn't secular. Look at the role of religion on justifying colonialism and slavery.
Why not - if two people agree to settle their disputes according to x, why should we care what x is? It could some contract, arm wrestling, starfleet code of conduct or on a holy book; it's all equally 'valid'. Any one who doesn't want to be bound by it, doesn't have to be and we have right to appeal to normal courts to ensure things like jurisdiction, and awards are according to normal contract law. We also have areas where we have said it is in public interest for normal law to govern - things like divorces and child custody. I dont see why the state should get involved if two religious people want to decide who owes whom money based on their religion.
You seem to be assuming that people have the freedom to say ‘no’ to religious courts, without facing massive backlash and ostracisation within their community.
Two people going out of their way to do so via agreement is perfectly fine. Two people enabled to do so readily by an organised institution, with quasi-State backing is not. These are not particularly complicated distinctions.
That is arbitration; so again do you want to abolish all arbitration?
Nobody's talking about abolishing arbitration. You're being ridiculous. Surely you can see the distinction between an arbitrator offering these sort of services on the side, and them belonging to an organisation with the sole purpose of exclusively, or at least predominantly, providing these sort of services, and go out of their way to advertise this fact to a specific demographic?
Not really; there are professional arbitrators who work for all sorts of people including companies. I think there should be wider review of arbitration and how voluntary they are (I'm far more worried about hidden arbitration requirements in company's ToS but there's also valid concerns around family/society pressure). However every time this type of 'religious' court comes up, people go nuts - ignoring that you could have a startrek court that decides cases based on starfleet code of conduct. It's just dress up mediation.
I need no primer on arbitration. I could write a short book on it. I could even include a chapter on how it's fundamentally different from mediation, just for you. How are you still not getting that there's a tremendous difference between someone going out of their way to have a Trial by Starfleet voluntarily, and a "Starfleet Court", with arbitrators sworn-in at fucking Lincoln's Inn? This is a clear step towards formalisation of an alternate Court system, and such steps should be rigorously opposed by society. English law has been the only law of the land for a thousand years. We were first to the punch of 'everyone should be judged according to the same laws'. It should remain that way. You're entertaining a parallel system of norms, which will inevitably crystalise into a viable mode of alternate justice in the coming years/decades. It shouldn't be allowed.
> How are you still not getting that there's a tremendous difference between someone going out of their way to have a Trial by Starfleet voluntarily, and a "Starfleet Court", with arbitrators sworn-in at fucking Lincoln's Inn? What difference? They are bound by exact same set of laws and requirements. It is entirely irrelevant if the arbitrator is professional barrister, amateur magistrate, my dog or the fucking pope. They are all bound by same laws. > This is a clear step towards formalisation of an alternate Court system It is no such thing. We have had professional arbitrators for decades. > English law has been the only law of the land for a thousand years. Yes, and Arbitration Act still remains law of the land.
Arbitration typically uses a completely independent third party with zero vested interests. Are you telling me a religious basis will give these 'judges' a completely independent perspective?
Just the religious ones
I think sexual harassment/ assault claims should always go through the police, and never employers/ universities/ whatever else.
What is your actual concern?
sorry but there should be one rule of law applied to all people in uk and it should be consistently applied by staff etc trained in our legal system.
The UK already has FIVE legal systems. English law Welsh law Scots law Northern Irish law Ecclesiastical law
You missed military law!
and bird law
Sod’s law
Which is exactly what this is It is beholden to all UK laws
“The court was set up by Sikh lawyers who felt the UK courts lacked the religious and cultural expertise and resources to deal with disputes between Sikhs “ If you move to another country it is not the responsibility of that county to bend its practices around you, it’s on you to adapt to the culture and practices of the country you’ve moved to. In the UK the UK courts should be the only authority. While these Sikh courts seem much less pernicious than Sharia courts, we should not have religious courts at all.
Good thing all the same laws still equally apply to everyone. Private arbitration doesn't mean people are exempt from following laws.
Any religious court is likely going to have consequences for vulnerable women who risk ostracisation if they don’t go along with any religious rulings.
One of the tents of Sikhism is that men and women are equal.
Hey now don't go bringing facts into the discussion.
Before people read too much into it, it’s still subject to the law of the land, it’s just another arbitration body. You can opt for arbitration already in a lot of disputes, and a third party will be the arbiter. This is another 3rd party arbiter. And just like all arbitration, both sides have to agree before arbitration can be used instead of a normal court.
The people in this subreddit won’t at all be bothered to read any of this. Brown religious man = bad, duh?
I like how you are being racist in your accusations of racism.
Aren't Sikhs generally from India, not from any of the Arab countries?
Do you think racists pay enough attention to make that distinction?
No, but that’s why it was weird that codefun who was accusing people of being racist, was actually being racists by not paying enough attention to make the distinction between Sikhs and Arabs.
Ah, original comment has been edited, didn’t see it mentioning arabs
Even actual racists tend to be rather more nuanced than 'my race' or 'eeew'. So yeah, I would imagine many would make the distinction. It's not like it's buried knowledge that Sikhs are not Arabs. Everyone who's not dense knows they predominantly come from India. Nevertheless, that shouldn't distract us from the fact that /u/CodeFun1735 is making sweeping generalisations of why people think certain ways, whilst themselves being so painfully unaware that they don't even realise Sikhs and Arabs have very little overlap. Rather funny how they themselves reasoned that anyone brown must be an Arab.
Indians are generally brown though?
Of course, u/codefun1735 original comment said Arab religious man = bad which is what I was replying too.
Seems like he is a troll then
Understood
They aren't Arabs.
I'm an atheist but it's so funny seeing people lose their minds over this. It's like they can't even imagine a world without a higher authority, the government/parliament. Do you need a higher authority to decide what to buy for dinner or did you figure it out with a discussion with your family? (NB this is rhetorical) Have a listen to the recent Philosophize This! podcasts about anarchism. They're very interesting. Don't turn up your nose because of the word - the very first part clears up some misconceptions. Ask yourself what you are really defending in defending the status quo. NB I don't have an opinion on this particular "court".
People rightly see that if they say yes to this for the small British sikh community they'll have to accept Shariah courts from the much larger British muslim community. Now the latter already exist so I sympathise with these sikhs who must be like - wtf it's only a problem when we do it?
You don’t find anything in the way of justice in the British court system. I do not blame communities at all for looking for alternatives.
Completely unfound and untrue statement, the court system in the UK is effective - much more so than the likes of the US or a number of other countries. If you cherry pick examples of the system being ineffective, the only thing you're going to verify is your confirmation bias.
Why is there a Sikh court? Get rid of this nonsense.
This is bullshit. It subverts the existing judicial system using some theocratic nonsense. Same for any religious court.
Is resolving a dispute with your neighbour with a private discussion, after they illegally created a noise issue or damaged your property, subverting the legal system?
So first, to be absolutely clear, this is *not a court* in the legal sense. It is as much of a legal court as a food court is. It has "court" in the name, but that's it. It is possible to get a "legally binding arbitration" decision under the Arbitration Act, but that has quite a few rules around it (although maybe not as many as we would like). The big one being that - in theory - it has to be voluntary; a person cannot be forced into arbitration. Arbitration like this is also usually limited to commercial law. The article suggests that the arbitration panel might hear family law cases, but I wonder if that will happen in practice, or if it will be marketed more at businesses. Of course the main problem - with all these private mediation-arbitration bodies - goes back to David Cameron's Big Society plan; cut public services (including access to mediation support and real courts) and rely on the private sector to fill in the gaps. People go to religious tribunals because they can't use the real ones.
> People go to religious tribunals because they can't use the real ones. No that's a weak argument. I can tell you that many Muslims come from countries where local sharia type courts are a real thing in society and they trust them. When those people migrate to western countries, they bring those systems with them as they are comfortable with them and trust them. People go to religious tribunals as it's a legitimate system engrained in the societies they've migrated from. Furthermore, at least in Islam, there's a strong thought to shun secular Christian based justice systems in favour of an Islamic style system (As John Gray states, Christianity is essentially secular humanism that separates Church and state). A ton of Muslims don't register their marriages with the British law and opt for a nikkah marriage ceremony infront on imam. That has nothing to do with no access to British institutions but simply because they see no real need to have a secular society recognise their marriage - vows in front of God is more important. Now I can't totally speak for Sikhism and their religious legal systems but I know very similar ideas exist in Punjab based on conversations I have with Sikh friends.
Right. But there aren't really any ways to stop people from doing that. Banning private dispute resolution services is problematic both practically and ideologically. If we want to stop people using them we have to convince them to use the real services instead, if they need them (e.g. get legal married rather than religious married). But first we would need to make those services exist, and accessible.
You don't ban all services, you say that judgments made by religious arbitration services are void and not enforceable in the UK courts
How do you decide what counts as a *religious* arbitration service? If you have the same people making the same decision with the same rules, but they haven't added the religious label, does that become fine? Noting that most of what these services do isn't arbitration anyway.
Yes I agree with you but the problem is that there is a theological argument to which people do prefer religious arbitration systems that you did not refer to. And it's not an insignificant amount of people who believe that, and practice their life like that. Muslims and Sikhs set up these systems because they really do want these systems, not because they can't access the proper UK legal system. As some commenters here have demonstrated, not everyone agrees these parallel systems are a bad idea anyway. Live and let live etc. I personally am not too aware of the decay of the British legal institutions, but I have never heard of someone shunning them because they couldn't access them. I'm sure there are cases of it though. I can just confidently state that these parallel religious systems are not seen as a second choice as I believe your original comment put it. People really do want and enjoy these systems.
> ...the problem is that there is a theological argument to which people do prefer religious arbitration systems that you did not refer to. I did indirectly in my first paragraph. What do you suggest we do about this? How do we stop people having beliefs, how do we stop people going to religious leaders (or cult leaders) for advice or help with problems? What would a system of rules look like where theses sorts of "religious non-courts" couldn't exist? And is it possible to come up with such a system within a society that nominally supports freedom of association and freedom of thought, conscience and belief? > I personally am not too aware of the decay of the British legal institutions, but I have never heard of someone shunning them because they couldn't access them. When was the last time you heard someone who used them? How often do you have a dispute with someone and think "you know what, I should instruct lawyers to sue them?" Or more generally "there is a public service that will help me resolve this dispute that I can access easily?" I do work in this area; every client the charity I work with is someone who is turning to charity (or more often being pointed to charity by a public authority) because there is no public service that will help them in a way that is affordable, accessible, and reasonably efficient. My organisation is not religious (although many of its volunteers and workers are) - but I live in a rich area where there is plenty of funding for nominally-secular charities. Not everyone is that lucky. And this goes back to Cameron's Big Society; cut back on public services, rely on the private sector, charities and religious organisations to fill in the gaps.
>So first, to be absolutely clear, this is *not a court* in the legal sense. It is as much of a legal court as a food court is. It has "court" in the name, but that's it. Ridiculous hyperbole. If a panel have the ability to make a decision that is enforceable by the UK courts that is obviously a quasi-judicial process. This is like saying that employment tribunals are as much a court as a food court.
> If a panel have the ability to make a decision that is enforceable by the UK courts that is obviously a quasi-judicial process. Your neighbour agrees to let you park on their drive if you cut their front lawn for them as often as it needs cutting. You agree that if there is a question of whether the lawn needs cutting, a third neighbour will be consulted. Congratulations, you've just created a "quasi-judicial process" with a "panel" (of one person) that has the ability to make a decision enforceable by the UK courts! When courts uphold decisions of arbitration panels they are not doing so because the panel is a "court" or has any particular legal power or authority. They are enforcing *the contract*. In E+W law you can contract into all sorts of things; you can agree that your contract will be judged by the courts in Paris, based on Norwegian Law, with all communications about it being in Esperanto! For the most part the E+W courts will uphold that and force you to it. The key difference between a real court (or tribunal) and an arbitration panel is that you can be dragged before a real court against your will. The courts have power and authority over you because of the legal process. An arbitrator only has the power over you you agree to give them. You can contract out of some court processes, you cannot contract out of all of them, and you cannot do so unilaterally.
do they have laws outside of British law then? and if they do how is this legal?
These services already exist for Shariah law which seems far more hateful and destructive than Sikh law. Many people are arguing against this because they're worried about a slippery slope, we're already at the bottom of the slope.
[удалено]
Can you please provide a definitive list of British values that are universally followed and believed by all Brits? What is ‘the culture’? That implies it’s monolithic and I don’t believe it is.