Is it right that British Jews can use Jewish courts?

Question

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm

"British Jews, particularly the orthodox, will frequently turn to their own religious courts, the Beth Din, to resolve civil disputes, covering issues as diverse as business and divorce."

The reason I ask this, is as this is the case for anyone who is Jewish, it should be right for Muslims to be able to use Sharia courts, where it does not conflict with UK law.

Answer 1

True, I guess, but I get really nervous when I always see those Jews in London chanting "Death to the West."   Plus, I guess those courts will treat the Jewish women well and the way that British women should be treated because it's known Jews don't treat their women well.

Mark S, JPA, I hope you recognized my sarcasm.

Answer 2

Law of the land.You live either it be australia ,america ,england and while you live in these countries everyone is under the law of that country and if you do not like these laws leave and return to the country your from and use a court there .If not use the law in the country your from in your own country.I can not come to america or england and ask to use australian law in there court's.

Answer 3

Never.

The State and Crown should retain primacy over all subjects.

furthermore- this is a prime example of Church attempting to over-rule state- not on, sorry.

Churchill warned us all about the four-by-twos.

If Jews want Jewish law- Israel ain't far.

Answer 4

yes!! it is right.  but then!! they live under special laws and special treatment. Jews can also slaughter!! innocent people and steal their land. they can shoot little children through the head, they can bully and refuse to officially recognise their neighbour in their own country too. but the thing is, if you question them you get six months of continuous Holocaust reminders. so every one shuts up. the fact that they have been ethnically cleansing  un challenged since 1948 has nothing to do with any! thing. world leaders are such bloody bloody hypocrites

Answer 5

"English law states that any third party can be agreed by two sides to arbitrate in a dispute, and in this case the institutional third party is the Beth Din"

The Beth Din courts have no more legal authority in the than Sharia courts. English law simply allows legal disputes between individuals or privately held companies to be settled by a third party as long as all parties are willing participants.

This would be like you and your neighbor Bob having an argument over something and both of you agreeing to have your other neighbor Dave settle the dispute.

Answer 6

I don't understand why there is such a fuss. If Jews are allowed to use their own religous courts to resolve disputes, it seems fair to allow muslims to on certain matters. Unless you are a muslim and want to solve it through religous courts, why do people even care. It's not hurting anybody. I think it's the negative image of muslims in the media as if they're aliens or something which makes people oppose without even finding out the facts.

Answer 7

According to the following link Jewish parties are "forbidden" to take their civil disputes to a secular court and are required to have those disputes adjudicated by a Beth Din "religious court") .Compliance cannot be compelled but depends on the parties agreeing with the religious rule and to

to submit to the jurisdiction  

http://www.theus.org.uk/the_united_synag...

So why not sharia which already operates  in Muslim communities as in Orthodox Jewish ones ?

Answer 8

No way. If they want jewish law, move to Israel.

Answer 9

I think the use of the word "court" is wrong. To my knowledge, Jews use religious hearings to settle "non criminal" disputes, usually of a religious nature. It is known that some Muslims already use Sharia law in a similar way in this country. I have absolutely no problem with this, what they do in their own back yard is their own business, where I do have a problem is when a senior member of the judiciary says that some aspects of Sharia law "could play a role in Britain's legal system". This is outrageous, to my knowledge (I may be wrong) Sharia law is based on religious idealogy, not rules of justice and therefore has no place in our justice system. The seperation of Church and State must be maintained, religion or faith of ANY kind must not be allowed to have sway in matters of criminal justice. Wherever would this lead us?

Answer 10

If Jewish people can use Jewish courts then i dont see why it is a problem when Muslim people want the same right too.

Answer 11

Thats a great idea, lets all make up our own laws and have a court system each. i am going to hang anyone who doesn't hop for the first mile of each day. and if people pick there nose left handed they get a bannana up there bum.

Answer 12

I think the key phrase here is:

"where it does not conflict with UK law."

I see no problem with it as long as that rule is adhered to.  The law of the land must always come first.

However, as Willow says, this would mean that Sharia would have no place in the British legal system as our system ensures that church and state are kept separate.

If Muslims want to use Sharia law to marry, divorce, decide child custody or property disputes amongst themselves (without contravening UK law) then I don't think anyone would have a problem with it - but thats not "law" as such, just non-criminal, civil disputes.  Thats as far as it could go, however.   Sharia Law could never be used to decide cases such as murder, rape, domestic abuse etc.  The law of the land must be adhered to in such "criminal" matters

If a muslim wishes to live in a country where Sharia Law has more power, they need to look outside of the UK.

Answer 13

Is it sane for anyone to follow serial rapist, mass murderer pedophile psycho, Mad Megalomaniac Mo's world domination manual & try to conquer Earth for global sharia mutilation/beheading - as Al Qaeda/Hamas/Hizbollah & Pres. Ah'm-in-a-jihad??

"This Is England!"  - U hate True Brit Grit?  -  LEAVE UK!!!!!!!

Answer 14

Did you bother to read the rest of the article???  I quote:

"English law states that any third party can be agreed by two sides to arbitrate in a dispute, and in this case the institutional third party is the Beth Din."

Answer 15

In the true sense the "jewish courts" are in fact a mediation service, so they do not have any legal powers under UK law,

so where is the problem?

Answer 16

it is ok for civil disputes if both sides agree to the consequences. Being an inferior court, either party should theoretically be able to file with a real court later. if they lose meaning all trials will go twice, unless the guys are really nice about suing each other. You can take your civil case to the peoples court or judge judy. Why not judge goldstein?

Answer 17

No, one law for everyone.

The Beth Din is no where near as stupid as the Sharia BTW!

Answer 18

As anyone who has had professional contact with Muslims know their culture is deeply hostile to women's rights and backs this up with violence and intimidation. We can have no confidence in Sharia law supporting British ideas of fairness and decency Certainly codifying it's application would encourage Moslems to regard our society as week and to up their demands. Perhaps other religions such as Sikhs, Hindus and Scientologists would demand their own courts

I would have a little more confidence in Jewish courts but the whole idea of separate courts for separate religions is positively medieval and another example of how multiculturalism is dragging us backwards.

Answer 19

Absolutely.   But there was an outcry in the press when a government member suggested it.     NOT, however, for CRIMINAL law.

Answer 20

Parties to a dispute can use whatever court or dispute resolution method they want, if they both agree.  As long as there is no illegal action taking place, there is no law saying that disputes must be heard in a government-established court.  If Muslims want to have their disputes resolved by a cleric of their choosing in accordance with their own beliefs, the government has no right to force them to go to a public court.

Answer 21

While I have no objections to religious courts settling internal disputes within a community, provided there is no conflict with English Law, I strongly object to religious exemptions that are not on a quid pro quo basis.

While it is quite reasonable for the Jewish shopkeeper to be exempt from the Sunday trading laws provided that both his premises and business are closed on a Saturday, the exemptions that permit animal cruelty on religious grounds are barbaric relics of a bygone age that should not exist in a civilised society.

Do Jews and Muslims have special breeds of cattle, chickens, sheep that do not feel the pain of conscious slaughter? I think not. If animals are worthy of legislation to ensure good husbandry and humane slaughter there should be no exemptions for Kosher and Halal ritual killing.