Britain now has 85 sharia courts at least. The tribunals, working mainly from mosques, settle financial and family disputes according to religious principles. They lay down judgements which can be given full legal status if approved in national law courts.
Those who comment on the influence of sharia law often count only the five courts in London, Manchester, Bradford Birmingham and Nuneaton that are run by the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, a body whose rulings are enforced through the state courts under the 1996 Arbitration Act, but the study by academic and Islamic specialist Denis MacEoin estimates there are at least 85 working tribunals. Mr MacEoin said, "among the rulings we find some that advise illegal actions and others that transgress human rights standards as applied by British courts."
The fact that so many sharia rulings in Britain relate to cases concerning divorce and custody of children is of particular concern, as women are not equal in sharia law and sharia contains no specific commitment to the best interests of the child that is fundamental to family law in the UK.
Under sharia, a male child belongs to the father after the age of seven, regardless of circumstances. A 2004 judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg said it was 'difficult to declare one's respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges from Convention values.'
Justice must treat every individual equally and sharia does not do this. Women are treated as inferior to men. To think that we allow this type of 'justice' to be meted out here in UK is beyond belief. When are we going to waken up and smell the coffee?
Posts
15 comments:
The mention of the word 'sharia' is always a banker if you want to start a nice hot debate. Crucially issues of custody are given legal status only by secular courts. If two parents wish to discuss their custodial arrangements with a priest, minister, psychiatrist, social worker, mullah, godfather, counseller, rabbi, dentist, etc. ... they are perfectly entitled to do so. Whatever agreement they reach must not be under coercion, unenforcable or othwerwise illegal.
The words thin and wedge spring to mind. It is cost effective, mind you!
I believe much of the divorce and child custody judgements are illegal Mek, according to our laws.
Is that why Brown & Co encourage it then OR?
Sharia law courts make me extremely nervous.
A separate system of law which applies only to a particular religious group? How can anyone think this is legal or sensible?
As for this quote among the rulings we find some that advise illegal actions and others that transgress human rights standards as applied by British courts.
Of course that's the case, otherwise there would be no need for this secondary court system in the first place!
I'd like to hear Gordon Brown employ one of his famous mantra's here.
"British laws for everyone living in Britain."
"Is that why Brown & Co encourage it then OR?"
I doubt it, more for votes. Saving money is an anathema to Labour.
You may also find this interesting?
http://callingengland.blogspot.com/2009/06/europe-of-regions.html
Its important to be clear about what we are talking about here. While I am an absolute opponent of religiously-based laws, an examination of the legal basis for these "Sharia" tribunals may be beneficial.
They're basically a creative and legal sanctioned re-imagining of your common or garden arbitration tribunal, under the Arbitration Act 1996. If I remember rightly, this Act is limited to England and Wales. I'll have a peek later to check what the symmetrical Scots provisions are. I am aware, however, that there is an Act in Holyrood at the moment which addresses questions of Arbitration. I haven't so much as glanced through the proposals, however, so cannot be of much help off the cuff.
But back to the English position and the Muslim arbitration process. Crucially, both parties have to consent to their dispute being heard in this forum. It would also be possible for such a method of dispute resolution to be provided for in any initial contract.
At some point, therefore, the individual will have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. From an equality of treatment point of view, you're right that this may be problematic Subrosa. In particular, one may raise fair questions about what sorts of limits there ought to be on what arbitration tribunals can or cannot resolve.
However, exactly the same allegation of unequal application of the law may be levelled at other, non-Sharia arbitration processes, which go on day in, day out. Would one want to end these? I suspect not. Why not? Because people consent to their jurisdiction, plain and simple.
"Examples set out in his study include a ruling that no Muslim woman may marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam"
My brother married a catholic and he had to convert to the roman catholic church which took several months.
And then what about Jewish law..and no doubt hindu,sikh of Rastafarian.
all law rely's on people voluntarily following the legal code..And if members of a community decide to do so disregarding the local law unless someone from the community complains what can you do.
the Beth Din‘s religious rulings are often seen as religiously and morally binding – some members of the Jewish communities seek a religious divorce, for example, because they feel it is necessary to maintain a sense of honour within their community.
the resulting Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act (2002) compels the Beth Din to issue a religious divorce if either party to a civil divorce requires it, safeguarding against the religious divorce being used as a bargaining tool. A minority of Jewish women – from highly conservative Ultra-Orthodox communities – will not be protected by this law if their community does not recognise the necessity of civil divorce
http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/files/1236789889_1.pdf
Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religious cult whose stated objective is to take over the world. Get yer burkas ready ladies - the mullas are comin'.
I'm with you on this Jim, perhaps it's just the fact that I know little about the process other than what I've read.
Lallands has written an informative comment though, that helps me a little.
Thanks for the comment Lallands. I'll be interested to hear what you think of the Scottish parliament proposals.
Jings Niko, what a deep comment and gives lots of room for thought. Yes religious input is often made into various family matters but surely we should all stick to the same legal requirements.
Scunnert, I told you this long ago, if something's not done I'll be walking 10 paces behind you if I live to 100.
So who decides if the Moslem woman in question has freely agreed to Sharia arbitration and not under duress ?
Didn't Ronnie and Reg Kray run an arbitration scheme of sorts modelled loosly on the 'honour code' of the Mafia ?
Exactly banned, that's the problem.
I've an arbitration system here, if help isn't offered then nobody gets fed. Simple.
Post a Comment