scipaThe Archbishop of Canterbury Has Been Hung Out to Dry
February 18th 2008 04:27
February 18, 2008.
I'm sure by now you have all heard or read, at least to some extent, the controversy sparked up by the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments about how some parts of Sharia law should be implemented into the British legal system.
Even Britain’s more leftist intellectuals’ strongly disagree with the Archbishop’s comments, as images, including political cartoons of Sharia law depicting wife-beating husbands and divorce strangle-holds spread around the world via media scare-mongering and right-wing politicians. The vast majority of the recent discourse depicts Sharia law - and those that follow it - as being a brutal, harsh and inhumane legal system.
To fill in the gaps for those who have missed the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments the Archbishop, Lord Carey, considered the idea of accommodating Sharia law into some areas of the dispute resolution process, in particular in the context of family law. This consideration was received with animosity both in the U.K., and here in Australia. I for one agree, at least to some extent, with the Archbishop’s idea. My reasoning is really quite simple.
Ghena Krayen and Harsam Farache, writing for the Sydney Morning Herald, alluded to the fact that some parts of Sharia law - in the context of family law - is already being used in the U.K. and indeed here in Australia. In the family context, two people can use the law of Christianity, Judaism or any religion, and it is both legally binding and equates to a valid contract. A couple can enter into a contract to abide by Sharia law if they so wanted to and many people form a vast array of religious and spiritual denominations do just that. How many of you reading this blog knew that, I wonder? I for one surely didn't before reading their opinion piece in today’s paper.
Without the media shoving ideas and images down our throats, let’s attempt to get one thing straight - there is a host of similarities’ between Sharia law and the Australian (and the U.K./U.S.) legal systems. Both courts share the same plaintiff and defendant system. Both systems have identical laws on child custody, and in fact, both follow the same guidelines as the Australian Family Law Act. The distinct difference between the two legal systems, at least in the according to the Archbishop, lies in the time-frame that a respective couple are forced to wait (1 year) to officially file for divorce. Yes, women who follow Sharia law can divorce their husband’s, too.
To truly exercise democracy and political and religious freedom, one must be able to exercise the Australian value of mutual respect, first, and then be able to ensure that equity and justice is attainable for all. Krayen and Farache also point out that in terms of mistreating woman, it is not so much an issue of Islam, but more so a cultural issue. I can understand why some people can find the Archbishops comments offensive, but one must be able to make the stark distinction between strict Wahaboo Islamic law (which I completely disagree with) to other Islamic-based legal systems. Just as one cannot claim that the British Westminster system is completely compatible with our own constitution and legal doctrines. Legal systems and customs change, not based on the solely on the religion of its people, but of cultural and historical factors that often organically changes.
By reading this, I hope that you don’t assume for a minute that I agree with the banning of the Three Little Piggies from all state libraries. No, this issue is not about political correctness, nor is it about modifying the centuries-long Westminster legal system in Britain - but more about giving families choice and freedom, taking into account Britain’s changing demographics.
| 91 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
