Star’s front row seat for sporting history
- Local newspaper week
Blog: Sharia Councils ‘undermine social cohesion’
Friday 2nd April 2010, 7:31AM BST.
Blog: By Mark Pritchard, Conservative MP for The Wrekin since 2005 and a member of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission.
Since the 1996 Arbitration Act, Government ministers have allowed Islamic tribunals around Britain to rule on a range of financial disputes, provided both parties agree to accept the court’s decision. But in recent years, these tribunals have developed into fully fledged Sharia Councils – allowed to settle new disputes, such as divorce, family law, and faith issues. These powers go well beyond the letter and spirit of the original legislation and whilst they provide new ways of dispensing cheap justice they do not always dispense fair justice.
By expanding the powers of Sharia Councils, ministers have set the scene for a breaking narrative which is fractious, discriminates against women, and, incrementally, is establishing a parallel legal system.
As Sharia Councils expand their powers and reach, ministers have unwittingly rolled the dice over a type of cultural snakes and ladders, all in the hope that such initiatives will increase inclusiveness and marginalise Islamic radicals. But all the evidence contradicts ministers’ stated aims. Sharia rulings are more likely to create legal ghettos – undermining rather than improving social cohesion. And in so doing, ministers are found guilty of piecemeal legal vandalism and managing the gradual decline of English jurisprudence.
The replacement of legal precedence and common law with Islamic codification is also a gift to some extremist parties who have seized on the increasing numbers of Sharia Councils as more evidence of the demotion of hard fought for British cultural freedoms and laws. And despite the protestations of senior government ministers over recent BNP advances, ministerial alarm calls will ring deep and hollow as long the same ministers continue to advocate two Britains.
The views of the BNP are repugnant, but it should not take BNP electoral gains for ministers to wake up to the fact that social cohesion cannot be predicated on the reality, or the perception, of one rule for one community and a different set of rules for everyone else. Allowing different groups to apply different standards at variants with existing common and statute law is a recipe for resentment and suspicion. This legal dualism also strikes at the very heart the great British virtue of fair play – and all British subjects being united – under one nation.
And as ministers sleepwalk into further fragmenting communities, they still decline to answer the fundamental question: do Muslim women enjoy the same rights under Sharia jurisprudence as under English law? Ministers should not be allowed to obviate when challenged about Islamic teaching on the role, rights, and responsibilities, of women in society. Ministers may choose to evade this issue, but Sharia principles and practices are unlikely to progress the much needed emancipation of Britain’s Muslim women.
Sharia Councils shine an embarrassing light on how ministers have increasingly relegated and downgraded thousands of Muslim women to de facto second class British citizens, perversely, in the name of tolerance and understanding.
The response of Government proponents of Sharia Councils say those who choose to come before councils do so on a voluntarily basis and that, according to the 1996 Act, parties are free to agree upon how their disputes are resolved. In reality, some Muslim women feel pressured into accepting the rulings of male-dominated Sharia Councils – mostly through fear of retribution and being ostracised – sometimes by their own families.
Women are also losing out in rulings over child custody disputes, which more often rule in favour of men. It is not unimaginable that, in the near future, people from other faiths – and no faith at all – will nominally or genuinely convert to Islam in the hope of begetting a sympathetic custody hearing and paternal settlement compared to the maternal bias of some English family courts.
Speaking at a justice conference last October, Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, commented: “There is nothing whatever in English law that prevents people abiding by Sharia principles if they wish to, provided they do not come into conflict with English law”.
Such conflicts occur throughout Britain every week, and with it, the shunning of basic rights for thousands of British Muslim women.
With Britain’s growing Muslim population, the sphere of Sharia Councils is likely to increase still further. This is something that must be resisted by those who believe in tolerance and mutual respect, and by those, including progressives in the Muslim community, who seek to champion the rights of all – including the equal rights of Britain’s female Muslims.
Sponsored Links
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
LIVE traffic updates
Road, rail and airport - latest
Our new, live traffic and travel updates service - check before you set out.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
shropshirestar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
Exactly the kind of right wing xenophobic comments that I have come to expect from the right honourable (?) Mr Pritchard – TBH this could have come straight from the News of The World.
I also don’t know why you claim that the BNP are repugnant when your views seem to echo theirs?
Just like Cameron, take a good look at this man and his real agenda before you cast your vote!
Report abuse
Escellent blog from the wrekin mp.People have been voicing their concerns on this issue for a number of years. Labour have chose to ignore the majoirty of the general publics concerns on this subject.
Sharia Councils must not be permitted to carry on as they are this is the UK and they need to be reined in now, and muslim women given the same protection which is provided under British law we only have one law to obey in the UK and that is and must remain British law.
Report abuse
Persona1 said:
“Exactly the kind of right wing xenophobic comments”
How do you justify two parallel legal systems in one country?
Successful opposition to the introduction of Sharia law to Canada’s Ontario province was led by a vocal element of women of Muslim origin – perhaps they knew better than anyone else what was involved?
Report abuse
The reason why the BNP is making such headway in this country is because of the unintelligent comments of Persona1 and others like him. I don’t care whether these comments were lifted straight from the News of the World, the BNP leaflets or from wherever, Mark Pritchard is dead right. If there is anything likely to drive divisions between our communities, reduce social cohesian and bring about social unrest it is issues like Pritchard writes about. I agree with Andrew Finch, we should have one law and one law only in this country and any others superimposed on it is just asking for all manner of problems.
And just for you Persona1, Gordon Brown, Johnson and their cabal in the Labour Party have now made it fashionable and the “in thing” to talk about these issues without getting branded racist, xenophobic or any other insulting term. Just like Brown – take a good look at those who throw the insults about when sensible and justifiable topics are openly discussed. Persona1, we are not yet in a Labour inspired society where free speech is denied but given enough time, they are going the right way to achieve it given your approach to this matter.
Report abuse
I find it very refreshing that somebody from one of a major political parties (and probably our next government), is aware of the problems that the increasing implementation of Sharia law can cause. Try not to worry about the personal insults, it’s par for the course when you say anything that criticizes Islam.
Report abuse
For someone who sits on the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission this blog seems very short on actual examples of where Sharia rulings are leading to the sort of issues Mark Pritchard suggests.
I’m not saying this isn’t the case its just that without evidence Mark is leaving himself open to accusations of “jumping on the bandwaggon”. If its a real problem then give us real examples of what’s happened, and more importantly suggestions of how the situation can be improved.
V
Report abuse
Thank you for saying this publically; it’s about time it was said. We need more politicians to stand up and say aloud what a lot of the population already thinks if we are to avoid pushing people into the arms of the BNP as they feel that they have no other choice. British law should apply equally for all people in this country and having a two part system is not going to work especially when the one part, sharia law, discriminates against women in the way that it does. There should be one British law for everyone; end of.
Now can we please have the same common sense applied to the wearing of the burka in public and an outright ban on that called for (and implemented)?
Report abuse
At last a politician speaks with courage and conviction. What other country allows a two tier system of law. Try living in the Middle East and requesting trial at the Old Bailey.
Report abuse
There seems to be a degree of mistaken opinion amongst several contributors to this thread that Sharia ‘Law’ in some way supercedes or overrules UK law. Of course it does not. In the UK, the use of the word ‘law’ is incorrect, and allows those such as Mr Pritchard, seeking to use this as a matter for electioneering, the option of doing so.
Sharia law in the UK is nothing more than an informal method of mediation, used with the consent of those within the Islamic faith, for the settling of disputes. In all cases those involved still have recourse to UK law, and in no cases does this method of mediation overrule UK law.
So why are people so worried? After all, those of other faiths have long turned to their religious leaders for arbitration and advice – why would Islam be any different? My personal view is that all religion is primitive mumbo-jumbo, but if other people wish to have their lives dictated by it, why should I care?
Is this really so different from a Jewish person consulting with his/her Rabbi over marriage difficulties? Or a Roman Catholic talking to his/her priest? I really don’t see that it is – it’s simply been used by our tabloid press to seek to demonise Islam, in a way that isn’t done with other religions.
Angel (comment 7) says ‘British law should apply equally for all people in this country’ – it does! Where did you get the idea that it didn’t? Similarly to Andrew Finch – do you have a single example of where UK law was overridden by Sharia Law, or where different laws applied to those who wish to be subject to this sort of arbitration? Can either of you come up with a single instance of anyone who has been disadvantaged by this?
If not, then however unintentional, I think that xenophobia might be a good description of what is going on.
Report abuse
Thank you Peter for an informed and well thought out response. Isn’t it a pity that many of the other posters have foresaken their better judgement, that is if any existed in the first place.
Muslims, like believers of other faiths, have the option of asking scholars and religious leaders for advice and opinions on religious matters. Whether they act upon this advice is totally up to the individual. What is absolutely certain and what the ignorant posters have failed to grasp is that any rulings of the Shariah Councils will never go against British law.
Pritchard, like many other Tory MP’s, is after easy votes and he obviously thinks this is a soft target. The reason why he hasn’t provided any examples is that that would significantly weaken his argument and expose him to challenges that he would clearly struggle to defend.
My question to some of the other posters is why are you afraid to admit your support for the BNP?
Report abuse
@Peter. You are seriously misinformed or out of touch. For example:
(1) A Family Court judge may find himself presented with an “agreement” produced at a Sharia council that gives custody of the children to the father which in normal circumstances the court would register and enforce.
But how is the judge to tell if this is a truly mediated agreement or simply the woman’s resigned acquiescence in Sharia law which does not explicitly consider the interests of children?
Sharia rules on child custody can be rigid and were described by judges in the House of Lords as ‘arbitrary and discriminatory’. The Lords noted that Sharia rules on child custody were incompatible with the human rights protected by the Convention
In general child custody reverts to the father at a preset age (seven for boys) no matter the circumstances or the behaviour of the father, and if a woman remarries she loses custody of her children.
(2) Women inherit half what a man inherits.
Under Sharia a Muslim woman will get a decision from a Sharia tribunal far less favourable than she would get from a British court under the Crown.
Sharia councils are entirely male. There are no female Sharia judges. Nearly a quarter of judges in UK courts are female and in magistrate courts it is half.
Muslims seeking a divorce through the Islamic Sharia Council pay a fee, and as if to rub in the inferior position of the woman, the fee for a man it is £100 and for women it is £250 because (they say) it is more work to process a woman’s application as her word has to be corroborated.
(3) In incidents severe enough to be referred to the police, the Muslim men involved in domestic violence have been directed to take anger management courses, and the women to withdraw their complaints. This has caused considerable disquiet suggesting that the police were turning a blind eye to domestic violence in the name of community cohesion or cultural sensitivity.
(4) Why should my next-door neighbour live by a different idea of what is fair?
For example, what is seen as fair in the default position on inheritance and the relative difficulties of getting a divorce for men and women. Surely “what is considered fair” is a universal that binds people together and gives them a sense of identity.
Report abuse
Asad,
If two parties go to an Arbitration Tribunal on a civil matter then they are bound by the results (as long as correct procedure has been followed and no law is broken.)
On family matters, it is ridiculous to think a Muslim woman will simply ignore the decision of a Sharia Council if she doesn’t like it. Unfortunately, a lot of Muslim women will be pressured (by family and/or community) into using Sharia Councils.
(As “Rob, Telford” above has already pointed out it was mainly Muslim women in Canada who prevented what we now have in the UK happening there. They knew where it was leading. The authorities also stopped the Beth din, Jewish arbitration tribunals so that every one was treated equally)
You like a number of people here are missing the point. Under British law there can often be a wide range of outcomes. It is not a matter of abiding by the law. There is only one law (or two if you count Scotland). It is to do with what judges/courts consider fair in any particular set of circumstances.
If a woman has had her arm twisted to go a Sharia council and that decision then goes to an English court for approval (which it has to if it is a family matter) the court will accept it. Its just tough on the woman that if she had not gone to a Sharia council and gone to the English court in the first place she would have got a better result for herself.
Many of those dealt with by Sharia councils are from the marginalised segments of society with little or no knowledge of their rights (likely treatment) under UK law. Women may simply be ignorant of their rights, due to language or cultural barriers.
This is a very serious matter and childish name calling doesn’t help.
Report abuse
Asad, exactly the response we could expect from a muslim man who obviously is one of those who relishes his “superior” position to that of muslim women. If you are not, why not tell us what else a British Sharia Court could deal with other than issues based on gender and that would not be dealt with by a British Court. You compound this by accusing other posters of the thick and unintelligent response that they are members of the BNP. I utterly oppose anything that puts or gives any other group/community anything that sidelines or adversely complements British institutions or traditions and Sharia Law does exactly that – and I am not a member of the BNP. Indeed, I am one of about 90% of the British people who would strongly object to the furtherance of Sharia Law – are all those BNP members. If so, watch out at the election because we will have a BNP Government. You are talking silly both in terms of the BNP and your unfounded allegations against the Tories. Indeed, you clearly show your prejudices which are not particularly attractive.
As for Peter’s comments, to compare Sharia Law with the speaking of Jews or Catholics with their faith leaders is utter nonsense. Even the Beth Din has no comparison with a Sharia Court and as for a Catholic (I am one myself)speaking in the confessional or consulting his/her priest is totally different.
To permit Sharia Courts in this country is a serious affront to our whole system of Judicial process, they are an affront to the equal position of women and the role of women in our society, they further drive a wedge between our communities and they encourage the continuance of male dominance which should be firmly stamped upon. Things have a habit of “creeping” and I firmly believe in the cliche’, give an inch and they will take a yard. LibertyPhile answers this much better than I or anyone else has. I prefer his/her interpretation of the issue rather than the biased and warped utterances of those who favour these courts.
Report abuse
Congratulations to Mr Pritchard for speaking such common sense. I read today that Muslim women are protesting against the spread of sharia law because they are disadvantaged by it, so it’s not just right-wingers or BNP supporters who believe what he says to be true.
Report abuse
Asad completely (and probably deliberately) misrepresents the thrust of the article by Mark Pritchard. Sharia courts and laws are intrinsically, by their very nature contrary, to the laws of the land because they come from Allah, not from the democratic process of discussion and debate. England is not yet a theocracy!
He also wants us to believe that a Muslim woman is truly free to attend or not to attend a Sharia court, and also completely free to ignore the findings therein should she so choose to do so. Fat chance. Mohammed, the founder of Islam, never gave women such freedom so why should his male followers? The answer is they should not and they do not.
Report abuse