BBC Panorama documentary on British Sharia courts

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah. it's not that Sharia is being used to sentence people to being stoned for apostasy in the UK, but certain aspects of Sharia are allowed to be used to help mediate disputes, such as child custody and divorce settlements.

If Sharia courts were handing down criminal sentences that should be handed down by the mainstream courts, then that is illegal, grossly immoral and should be stopped immediately.

The main point of these courts is that they tend to have their influence in very, very Muslim-centric towns. A lot of these women will be coached, coerced and pressured into using these courts by their partners, their family and their community if their religion (or their community's) religious background is very strong. It's all very well saying that, in law, these courts have no official status but the many, often brainwashed and unfortunate women, that use them don't think like that. They consider Sharia courts to have far more authority than any secular court.

Indeed, if you listen to the woman at the end of the Panorama programme, she blames her poor treatment from these courts and the abuse by her family as not being like "true Sharia", yet if she was under a true Sharia system, she would literally have no rights at all - not even theoretical ones.

In the UK it isn't as simple as that. During the days of empire, Britain left an indelible footprint in what is now muslim Pakistan. This has meant that many Pakistanis acquired British citizenship and now for one reason or another, now claim a stake in the UK. Quite frankly in this case its our pigeons coming home to roost.

You can't colonise, loot and pillage a country without expecting some sort of repercussion or indebtedness of responsibility to those you once subjugated.

I don't deny the truth of what you say, but any woman who has been pressured into accepting the jurisdiction of a Sharia court is still free to stand up and say, "I did not voluntarily agree to this." If she does not stand up and deny the court's jurisdiction, how are we to tell the difference between a woman who consents by coercion and a woman who consents because she genuinely believes that this is the correct forum in which the dissolution of her marriage must be decided?

When you say, "They consider Sharia courts to have far more authority than any secular court," you come to the issue nicely. This is their belief. And absent a woman's own explanation about the source of her belief, we cannot distinguish between a bona fide belief, and a belief that has been procured under duress.

Where a woman disclaims her agreement to adjudication, civil courts should not hesistate to substitute their own findings. But if she does not disclaim the jurisdiction, what is the basis on which a Civil court can step in?

Found this article on the centre-left blog Left Foot Forward. The writer is from a Muslim background and is a human rights activist (though I probably wouldn't agree with her on her environmentalism!). She explains the reasons why these courts have come into existence - the rise of Islamism in Muslim communities in the West, the pro-religion policies of successive governments, and failed integration policies. I believe that the last two have a big part to play in particular in stopping all this. I would have added unwise immigration policies to this list also.

I reject both of these notions.

To my mind, integration is not a desirable aspect of an immigration policy. For centuries, London was the most cosmopolitan city in the world, and it did so by accepting the presence of large non-British populations who continued to be free to live according to their own religions and cultures. British prosperity was built on international trade, and the fundamental bases of that trade were the bridges built between Britain and foreign territories and countries by the presence of a multicultural population in the capital.

A drive towards integration serves to drive a wedge between mainstream and immigrant communities. It reinforces difference and separateness, rather than welcoming diversity. It is retrograde.

As for not needing Islamic courts, that is entirely beside the point. Whether or not I need something, I am still free to seek it out. And so long as we encourage people to use Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms to resolve their differences, then Sharia courts are valid and viable means of doing so.

We should be vigilant that their presence is not abused--but we should not deprive people who genuinely want them to have access.

Or feel obliged to because of their religion and the very strong communal insistence that these courts be used.

The UK government has tried to monitor these courts in the past, but the courts themselves have refused access.

A step too far, methinks. A person who has chosen to live within a community, implicity agrees to the community's rules. Any adult in Britain is free to pack her bags and move out into another community if she rejects the standards of that community. If she professes Islam, and accepts Islam's teachings, it's not appropriate for us to displace that. A woman may feel pressured to accept a Sharia court, but decide not to complain about that pressure because she does not want to sever her ties with her community. In that circumstances, I would be loath to disturb her decision.

But the moment that she says that she rejects the court, then that should be game over.

I also think that monitoring is inappropriate. Forums are expected to govern their own procedure, and if there are errors of jurisdiction, then parties are free to raise those in civil courts. Again, if one of the parties does not complain, where is the basis to act?

So what's the story going to be the first time a British citizen is lawfully dragged before one of those sharia courts and tried for blasphemy against the Koran?

The story is going to be that no one but the Courts established by the Crown may adjudicate in the areas of public law.

There is no place for Sharia courts in public law matters, or in private law matters where the parties do not attorn themselves to the jurisdiction of the court. That is the sole and exclusive jurisidiction of Her Majesty's Justices.

That's how it is NOW.
With more western progressive sympathy and love of Islam we'll see where it goes in time.

Ecclesiastical courts have existed in England since no later than the 12th century, and it has long been established that their jurisdiction does not extend to public law.

The Ecclesiastical Courts of the Church of England have not imposed themselves into public law. No Bet Din has ever done so. So what evidence is there to suggest that Sharia courts will do so?

But has there ever been such and embracement of Islam before, though?
Come back with whatever you want. I'm not going to dwell on it forever.

Why should Islam be viewed any differently than any other religion?

Christianity, Judaism and Islam all have systems of laws and courts--but it is only Islamic courts that have been greeted with this level of fear. Why should that be?

Visagrunt, I think that in this case you might be naive about how much 'choice' a virtually cloistered Muslim (or Orthodox Jewish, or whatever) woman might have in whether she goes to a Sharia or a secular court.

Not in the least.

But there is a benchmark that must be reached before the state can intervene. If she is unwilling to sever her ties with her community, or to stand up and say, "I do not agree," then where is the legal or ethical basis for the state to step in and intervene?

I know that many women in these communities are repressed. I also know that until they stand up and say so, we act presumptuously if we try to intervene on their behalf.