11th July 2008

“People who look favourably on a parallel system of religious courts for civil matters claim they do no harm if all parties consent to their use. This, of course, is the crux of the matter: how can we know that women from traditional and religious families have given consent when they are under huge pressure from relatives? They may be threatened into accepting the authority of a religious court, just as hundreds of young women (and some young men) are coerced into getting married against their will.”

Joan Smith

4 Responses to “11th July 2008”

  1. John Sutton Says:

    And what happens if one party does not give consent? There will be an assumption of guilt within that community.

    So we look forward to a system whereby someone innocently obeys the laws of this land – then finds that a vindictive individual can appeal to the local religious bigots who, generally have no democratic mandate.

    One nation – one law.

  2. Chris Says:

    Parallel justice = no justice.

  3. Chris Says:

    And isn’t this simply another insidious way in which the Religicons are granting special status for themselves? Civilized societies have got to say no to this kind of thing. Their goal is nothing more or less than the imposition of religious law on ALL citizens, not just their own adherents.

  4. Terence Meaden Says:

    The Declaration of Human Rights 1948 is the basis of decent human law.
    Leading Muslims have made it known that they do not recognise this. They have established a dismal variation that gives primacy to the Sharia codes—codes that were initiated by the possibly epileptic Muhammed, extended and disseminated in ensuing centuries by warrior fanatics, and subject to intense promotion today.
    http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina41204.htm (Muhammed and Temporal Lobe Epilepsy)