Sharia Law

[redvanman]

Why are we allowing 80 SHARIA law courts to operate in this country

[fiction-factory]

Depends on what you mean by 'allowing it'
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/611934/ministers-Sharia-Islamic-law-courts-Lord-Bates-Theresa-May

[hc4361]

Why aren't you also asking about the Beth Din courts?

[ummmm]

They have the 'real' law as backup.

[scorpiojo]

Link to 80 please?

[fiction-factory]

From my link, redvanman

//But Amra Bone, Britain's first Islamic judge on a Sharia Council, denied its courts discriminated against women.

Mrs Bone said: "We apply Sharia principles within the law of the land. We are a voluntary body and can't make orders – we just advise. //

[fiction-factory]

The figure of 80 may have come from this Nigel Farage story in January
https://fullfact.org/factcheck/law/80_sharia_courts_britain-38319

[Quizmonster]

The Church of England has ecclesiastical courts to deal with specifically religious matters affecting it, so why should Islam be deprived?

[youngmafbog]

The problem is that Sharia courts are based on the 16Century. The world has moved on since then particularly with regard to women.

Of course the Islamic supporters seem to gloss over these bacic human rights issues.

[New Judge]

We did most of this over the weekend:

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1462005.html

However, a few matters arising from this latest question need to be addressed.

“They have the 'real' law as backup.”

Absolute hogwash. The “real law” is there to be bypassed, it’s not there as a backup. The women involved in matrimonial and family matters handled by Sharia Courts have no reasonable access to the “real law”. They are dominated by the male members of their families or communities and the Sharia courts are similarly male dominated. Should they disagree with the rulings of a Sharia court (or indeed not wish to have their matter heard by one at all) they cannot simply pop down to their High Street solicitors and ask them to take action via the “real” law. Their lives simply don’t work like that.

“The Church of England has ecclesiastical courts to deal with specifically religious matters affecting it, so why should Islam be deprived?”

The Church of England’s courts do not interfere in family and matrimonial matters, or indeed anything usually dealt with by the “real” law. They do not rule on child custody or divorce. They confine themselves to “Church” matters. Forgive me for cribbing this bit:

“The courts have jurisdiction over matters dealing with the rights and obligations of church members, now limited to controversies in areas of church property and ecclesiastical disciplinary proceedings.”

So, they deal with unfrocked vicars and the like, not quite the same thing at all.

“Why aren't you also asking about the Beth Din courts?”

If it were my question I would because I find them equally offensive and unacceptable.

For my general views on the issue see the earlier question.

[Quizmonster]

"They confine themselves to 'Church' matters."
That's precisely what I said, NJ.

[Quizmonster]

I intended to add above
...and when precisely did you, YMB, become a champion of human rights law? You've been condemning it constantly for years!

[ummmm]

You're assuming, NJ.

[New Judge]

Yes, QM, we won't argue because we are largely in agreement. However your reply gave the impression (well it certainly gave me the impression) that Sharia Courts are no more harmless or offensive than the CofE courts. ("The Church of England has ecclesiastical courts to deal with specifically religious matters affecting it..."). If that were solely the case with Sharia Courts I would have no problems at all. I have no interest in any religion whatsoever and have even less in how those organisations impose their rules (provided breach of those rules does not contravene UK law as well).

But Sharia Courts go much farther than that. They pass judgements adopting principles which are perverse to UK law on matters that they have no right adjudicating on at all. Furthermore this is not simply an informal arbitration tribunal composed to simply avoid the courts and which may go to law if the arbitration is unacceptable either of the parties. The parties (and I'm mainly thinking of Muslim women) have no realistic recourse to UK law when the Courts' invariably perverse decisions are delivered. And that is simply wrong

[youngmafbog]

Not at all, I championed for the HRA to be reformed to stop petty and ridiculous claims ratified by the EU; if you look back at my posts.

[Quizmonster]

"I championed for the HRA to be reformed," you say, YMB.
In other words to change it, because you didn't like it to have teeth that could come back and bite right-wing decision-makers on the donkey! (I am there, of course, referring to the three-letter word that means the same as donkey!)

[New Judge]

"You're assuming, NJ. "

What am I assuming?

Read reports, surveys and case studies about women having been dealt with by Sharia Courts. Read about the outcomes (and the bases upon which they were reached); read about the efforts of some of the women effected to have their plight formally dealt with in the "proper" courts. Speak to a few Muslims to get their understanding of how Sharia Courts operate. Then decide whether the proper law is there as a backup or not.

Of course all the reports, surveys and studies may be lies. But somehow I doubt it.

[tonyav]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3358625/Inside-Britain-s-Sharia-courts-EIGHTY-FIVE-Islamic-courts-dispensing-justice-UK-special-investigation-really-goes-doors-shock-core.html

[redvanman]

Cameron bending over backwards for the Muslims again showing weak ness witch they love