Sharia and europe with Mathias Rohe p3

of the world trying to implement their very rigid and specific a tradition worldwide but what’s the situation in Europe there is some thousands of women we are in asleep on should they be prevented from doing so and we know that there is they get legislation on that in France in Belgium there was an initiative in Parliament in the Netherlands which was stopped there was a short debate in Germany I was myself an expert in the German Federal Parliament but fond of then neither of the parties from left to right or really inclined to introduce any new laufeyson they said we have enough we have enough legal protection if this the part is really detrimental to the common good so what is the argument of those want to prevent the new power in public space in total we know from France that this was a political issue it was simply promoted demonstrate we are French we will defend our culture and these are the Allison let’s let’s prevent them from doing so one of the major arguments in France was it is simply impossible that the woman can accept such the garment willing without being forced to them and I must admit being part of the European citizenship it is extremely difficult to communicate women we are in such a garment because more than fifty percent of communication is not language it’s mimics it’s just acceder and very often this new power so far necessity of wearing indie comics is explained by the exposure to male views I must say I’m not happy the image of females and males alike but these people are women so big that they need this kind of protection against them and are men so weak that you can’t distinguish them and don’t distinguish them themselves from animals would react very instinctively maybe to make things for the other with the opposite sex but I think still be are human beings so we can protect ourselves and the others by other means something away it’s a kind of hiram percy personally as a kind of offense in civil society why don’t they but why do they mistrust us so much that they think they have to hide in public London but why shouldn’t they do it if they wish to do so if they are simply walking in this truth I mean there are ways of being covered or of being uncovered in the street we do not need the taste of everyone equally but this is civil society there is a broad range of options of perceptions and as long as that does not endanger some legitimate legal issues we have to run freedom freedom of religion freedom of behavior of course we could restrict this Veronica or whatsoever in cases of security issues of course if you want to control someone here for the difference in a warehouse people have to remove this garment i would say state offices couldn’t hear it i would even go so far that in all cases where communication is not only desirable but unmissable for promoting the issues you have to promote then you can legitimately prevent it and I will include for example glances in universities I want to see the face of those which I’m talking to which I’m responding to so I think we can draw the limits without endangering the basis of our common culture of security and communication we do have freedom of religion I had to go to the last point concerning places would save you the freedom of religion not only in relationship between the state individuals these for my examples so far but also in private matters which means between private subjects which is mainly relevant than from leading point of view in labor cases why is it so so the idea is first and foremost basic rights fundamental rights human rights are protected frames for individuals against the state the state has to protect as the grant these rights these are the

sort of liberal liberal roots of human rights but then we have second third generations of human rights and we have their idea that this set of Human Rights the set of fundamental rights creates a kind of normative order which should at least influence to a certain extent also private relations so in private relations you might you may discriminate to a certain extent in the way that you have your own preferences you are not necessarily forced to deal with everyone the law forces us to obey them up to pay our taxes but the law cannot force nice people so there is a broad scope of ethic attitude of morality of religion of whatsoever we’re a society of the bakery the day in society has conducted rather than laws have simply to be implemented and imposed on people being a lawyer I’m saying and having been a judge at the god for a couple of years there are so many conflicts in society which are not very well served by calls since you don’t come to the roots of the conflict you can decide a particular case you have to of course if people are coming to your car in some cases you know if we help reach a settlement here this conflict will continue and there are some confident events which should be debated in society they long can impose the logcat forms but there are cannot necessarily convince and if we want to convince people we have to debate issues in society and of course we have at least to explain why the laws are as they are and so in the sphere of private law we do have some human rights standards freedom of religion standards but not to the same degree as in the relationship between this day and they individual why because the state itself is not granted human rights it’s not a Bureau of human rights it’s simply a mode of organization of transmitting interests of balancing interests but the state cannot claim human rights so the individual which can claim them is in a relatively strong position if we do have a conflict between employer and employee concerning religious issues for example free time for prayer etc etc there are two people in conflicting interests who post may claim their individual tournament rice the rights of the employer maintain his own enterprise etc the right of the employee to to a certain extent follow religious convictions and here we have to balance the interests how important is this religious issue how important on the interests of the employer of course has to run his or her enterprise you can only decide that from case by case I mean there was actually a British case a couple of years ago a bus trip in London I think it was wanted to interrupt the bus rides for the ritual prayer which is shoulders we know five minutes ten minutes you can do with it but nevertheless take the bus stops the driver goes outside praying met etcetera etc performs Brandan Wright continues very often I i had that winner when I was traveling in operating new countries no one cares time schedule is some suggestion rather than a fixed rule and so no one really cares if they drive or something hasn’t just wish to do so they simply do but can you I mentioned in other places in London now and so it was very clear that this driver could not claim freedom of wrench into this extent to interrupt public traffic in this one a contrary case labour court in Germany there was a lady who wanted to perform Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca the one at the right time so not the ambra which can perform all over the year but precise type of the Muslim a year her job was to accompany children in a school bus just look for for keeping the order within the passage cetera and so her employer said yes well in 14 years the holidays will fall together with the time of the pilgrimage then you may go but not now and this lady she was at too young an old mother who cared for her disabled child employed under the employ is shot so in 14 years time it was very unclear whether she would find anyone to care for the child as long as she’s in Mecca

etc and so the labour court said well why didn’t you regard this needs of the woman at that time to perform the pilgrimage suppose if she were sick for two weeks you would have to find an alternative for now so it is not a big deal for an employer to get such a big enterprise with so many employees to find an alternative solution and so the weight of interest was disregarded and therefore the termination of the contract was not accepted by they can’t so these aren’t just two examples where which should try to demonstrate it that you always have to be concrete at the kindest case to be decided and very often it’s a kind of grade and measure it’s not like a point the law if applied completely is very much greater than the gray zone you know everyone has a point and you think you have the balances and then you put them into that and then at the end way so very often we don’t have very strong solution signal that’s crystal clear the solution and the other one are not met very often people have their points at the end you have to work by a fair measurement welfare measurement and by the necessary amount of self criticism and self conscience how easily you can be biased in your decision by non information by wrong information by your own experience lawyers usually are trained to try to be objective we know we can’t be on but at least we try to but it’s it’s hard work and very often you have this mix of dealing with phenomena which are religious ones we try to deal with immigration which we have to deal with other things and it’s all mixed up so sound information first sound information before deciding is indispensable and we don’t have until now the degree of sound information we should wish as it comes to some parts of islamic knowledge eva team in our cords and in situations yet and this was a part of our very guard object a project i mentioned before my clever later us to develop concrete suggestions to the european commission how we could improve the system getting more balanced decisions on basis of sound information of applying sound measurements in design a few last words to leave some space or by the debate of course relating to possibly the most intricate aspect of sharia in europe which is the linear part of shia is that all you chalia the system of islamic normativity contains religious as well as legal rules so it’s heavy we know its contract law it’s todd long it’s penal law it’s law of evidence many other spheres who are regulated according to Islamic rules very different intensity so it’s making family inheritance charities which is the core of Islamic law nowadays in the so-called Islamic why you should we deal with such Islamic law and by the way I have to mention this is not Sharia this is state law arrived from certain interpret interpretations of Sharia which are quite different according to the several school sunni-shia divide divides within the schools etc so if we are talking back about islamic long trip the legal sense so norms applying here in this world with worldly consequences and we shouldn’t talk about islamic law or Sharia but we should talk about today in law egypt general moroccan law indonesian law it’s attractive but why should we deal with these laws isn’t it the case that in belgium belgian law rules internally german law in France fen zhong of course that strong that’s true the law in no single state in the world is multicultural in the sense that we would recognize an equal value of conflicting legal orders so one legal order has to have the right to last decision in case of conflict and all the states in this world claim that layer their law of the land which is given by the respective sauron has to decide on this last and most superior level so if

we apply foreign knows if we apply foreign law we do that under our own legal system it’s not because the others claim that it’s because we the legal owner of the land of belgium of germany decides to do sir we don’t do it in public law we don’t do it in Metis well sovereignty is touched especially we don’t do it in penal law since penal law is the function of granting a common minimum standard of conduct so we cannot pluralize these rules in a way that okay there are victims first-degree needing them second-degree other victims will protecting the dog it was nice people are living to their own rules this would undermine the very roots of the basic function of the law which is granting peace in society and we do have this common wyndham minimum standard this common measure of unity to grant peace in our societies and every society has the right to define this common minimum standard which is changing of course as we know but nevertheless as far it is as it is defined in a particular way everyone has to keep these rules and this is the publication but the let’s come to so-called private line private lobbies are closed to public law civil law which regulates the relations between private persons of its contractors thought its family’s inheritance etc so here the interests of individuals are of primary importance and now we are living in an international work we always did but more than ever my country for example every fifth marriage is an international model so spouses have difference in symptoms and I think it’s not very different in other countries in Europe and so the question comes in which should be the law which is the appropriate law to govern these relations this technique some of French people living in France for 4050 years having married ever grown up the family etc and then coming to lunch or to Germany other than our country should we necessarily say now that you are here we apply Belgian law to you even in cases where Belgian law differs from French colleges example because there are so many similarities between the two but in case of differences we acknowledge to a certain extent that people rely in the creation and living their relations but they are living under a certain under a particular legal framework and that’s why then they arrange their lives according to this framework so should we change the very much just because they change the model they may change their place of residence not necessarily and this is the sphere of so-called private international law or conflict of laws in international cases in cases were more than only one legal all is touched by the effects we have to decide which is the more appropriate law to govern these relations and then we could come under our own loss to the result that the more appropriate law is the law of France or the law of Jordan or the law of Brazil or what country what server so this is nothing specifically Islamic long it’s the application the scope and limit for the application of foreign law as such and this is why European administration’s in courts on a daily basis apply for a long in these private issues including Lord arrived from Sharia Islamic law in the shape of state laws but there will be limits on cause then limits are drawn by autocomplete by popping all of public policy are where you would code the French term this very widespread science and practice we have to live we have to limit the application of foreign rules in cases where the outcome of the application of this random not everyone is such the outcome of the application of red foreign rule would fundamentally contradict our own rules our own solutions so then if we have such a great disparity between the solutions we cannot anymore and force these foreign laws which would contradict our own convictions basic emotions and would thus undermine the necessary amount of cohesion of our legal systems so we open the door for foreign law for reason of appropriateness but we then close it if the outcome of the application contradicts public order in the sense of

the concrete violation the outcome and as regards their convictions the convictions of the law of the land to give you a practical example it’s again it’s cases which are not occur very often but which are always a part of the Shia debate polygon how do you deal with polygon which by the way it’s not as they’re seeking form for Islam we do have it in southern Africa we have it in Thailand we’re having in other cultures for various reasons nevertheless