It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

British 'sharia courts' under scrutiny

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Over the last 30 year these courts have operated in Britain with about 90% of their cases being divorce. The first Sharia court was open in 1982.

The British govt. doesn't have an idea of the exact number of courts, some say 30 but who knows.

Complaints that the courts discriminate against women, by not granting them divorce, kind of turn a blind eye to domestic abuses, and their is accusations of the courts legitimizing violence, that includes marital rape. The British govt is looking into the courts.

Religious courts are not new to Britain, Jewish, Catholic have their own courts, no special court's decisions are legally binding, but have moral and social constraint for those that decide to use them.

I don't understand all the different courts, seems messy and makes different laws for different people.

Is this a good thing?

Or is is ripe to encourage abuse?



London (AFP) - For more than 30 years, sharia courts enforcing Islamic law have been operating quietly across Britain. But two official inquiries have put them in the spotlight amid accusations that they discriminate against women.

Very little is known about them, even their number, which one study by the University of Reading puts at 30, while the British think tank Civitas estimates there are 85.

Sharia courts or councils, as they prefer to be called, mainly pronounce on Islamic divorces, which today constitute 90 percent of the cases they handle.

They range from groups of Muslim scholars attached to a mosque, to informal organisations or even a single imam.

But while they are aimed at helping resolve family and sometimes commercial conflicts within the Muslim community, some stand accused of undermining women's rights.

Campaigners cite instances where courts have refused to grant religious divorces to women who are victims of domestic abuse, and accuse them of legitimising violence, including marital rape.

The government and MPs on parliament's home affairs committee both opened inquiries this year into whether the councils are actually compatible with British law.

They are looking into the function and possible discriminatory practices of the courts.

- 'Rise of the Islamist movement' -

The first sharia court appeared in London in 1982 under the government of Margaret Thatcher, who rolled back state intervention in many areas, including mediation in family conflicts, which was delegated to faith groups.

But religious courts have existed for hundreds of years in Britain, whether in the Catholic Church or in the Jewish community -- the Beth Din -- notes Amin Al-Astewani, lecturer in law at Lancaster University.

As with sharia councils, the decisions of those bodies are not legally binding, but they represent a strong moral and social constraint for those who use them, he wrote in a submission to the parliamentary inquiry.

For Shaista Gohir, the chairwoman of Muslim Women's Network UK who gave evidence to the parliamentary inquiry, sharia councils are useful for Muslims but should be framed by a "strong code of conduct".

She also urged the government to make civil marriage obligatory for couples marrying under Islamic law, to ensure women are legally protected, saying that 40 percent of women who contact her organisation only had religious marriages.

But for other Muslim feminists, the courts constitute a "parallel legal system" and should be banned altogether.

An open letter to this effect was signed by more than 200 national and international women's organisations, while legislation which would limit the scope of sharia councils has been put forward by a member of the House of Lords.

"They are discriminatory, they are abusive, they endorse and legitimise violence," in particular marital rape, Maryam Namazie, spokeswoman for the One Law for All campaign, told AFP.

She added: "These courts are linked to the rise of the Islamist movement. They are now saying that to be a good Muslim you have to go to these courts to get a divorce. It's not the case."

Swiss political commentator Elham Manea, the author of "Women and Sharia Law" who has studied the phenomenon for four years, said the first councils were set up by Islamist groups.

"They have been working with a kind of a tacit approval of British establishment," she told AFP.

"There is a certain kind of hesitancy from British institutions to interfere in what they consider is internal affair to the Muslim community."

It remains to be seen whether the inquiries will change that situation, but they are already having some effect.

The London Central Mosque is attempting to organise the tribunals by bringing them under an umbrella group, the UK Board of Sharia Councils, which currently has 15 members.








www.yahoo.com...




posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Why was this ever allowed, a government within a government? Wake up Britain and take your country back!



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   
# sharia law .. it ain't the ME take ther #ty laws bk over ther ....





posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: WUNK22

In the US we have arbitration courts...also completely private. I've long thought I should make a thread about them.



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Unfortunately, religious courts are not uncommon.

For example, a network of Orthodox Jewish religious courts (Halakha) exist across the United States and across the world.

Polygamy is essentially legal in Utah, a practice banned everywhere else in the United States.



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere



a reply to: seasonal Unfortunately, religious courts are not uncommon. For example, a network of Orthodox Jewish religious courts (Halakha) exist across the United States and across the world. Polygamy is essentially legal in Utah, a practice banned everywhere else in the United States.

In the US their decisions are not legally binding are they?



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere



a reply to: seasonal Unfortunately, religious courts are not uncommon. For example, a network of Orthodox Jewish religious courts (Halakha) exist across the United States and across the world. Polygamy is essentially legal in Utah, a practice banned everywhere else in the United States.

In the US their decisions are not legally binding are they?



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Of-course they are, for the participants.

You wouldnt be subjected to a Jewish court if youre not Jewish or entered into a contract with a Jew.

They are commonplace in New York, Los Angeles, Miami etc.

In the same way, I would imagine that a "Moslem court" would only apply to Moslems...


edit on 13-11-2016 by gladtobehere because: wording



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   
No courts other than the official HM courts ought to be allowed, that goes for the Jewish ones too.

These things merely disadvantage women (it is mostly women who are the ones pressured into using these courts for cases of spousal abuse and divorce proceedings).

Stupid, religious anachronisms that have no place at all in the modern world.



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: gladtobehere



a reply to: seasonal Unfortunately, religious courts are not uncommon. For example, a network of Orthodox Jewish religious courts (Halakha) exist across the United States and across the world. Polygamy is essentially legal in Utah, a practice banned everywhere else in the United States.

In the US their decisions are not legally binding are they?


Neither are the ones in the UK. Despite the hype the media puts out about them, they're still not a "law of the land" court. That means it's about as useful as 2 kids playing cops and robbers.



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

So they are not legally binding.

But the participants agree to go by the religious courts so by default the are binding by consent.



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Why Sharia is even gotten a place within the British laws, when sharia is a medieval practice.

Here in the US Sharia can not work because it goes against the constitutional laws of this nation, darn I am glad we have then.

Sharia should be eradicated from modern free societies, and deem them illegal and against basic human rights.



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

These so called Sharia law courts have no power to enforce there perversion of the law of the land other than the religious people who abide by there heinous judgments they don't have any authority over anyone or anything.


They should be terminated and shutdown!


Wonder what would happen if i decided to set up my own court of law and start handing our judgments to dubious easily led individuals and vulnerable woman?

Nothing good i imagine.




edit on 13-11-2016 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Always the focus on sharia, because its a clickbait bull# buzzword that is guaranteed to get people who have no idea what they are talking about but happen to hate muslims frothing at the mouth.

Did no one notice this in the OP?



Religious courts are not new to Britain, Jewish, Catholic have their own courts, no special court's decisions are legally binding, but have moral and social constraint for those that decide to use them.


Arbitration courts are nothing new. At all. In business, in sports and in religious cultures.

Stop the scaremongering.



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore



Always the focus on sharia, because its a clickbait bull# buzzword that is guaranteed to get people who have no idea what they are talking about but happen to hate muslims frothing at the mouth.

Did no one notice this in the OP?

I think the concern is the actual decisions coming out of the courts, not the religion as you so sensitively pointed out. Stop being so sensitive.



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore

Jewish and Catholic courts should also be shut down.

There is only one set of laws that apply in the UK those being the laws of the land.

Cannot have one rule for them and another set of rule for everyone else, down that road lies anarchy.



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Sensitive? ROFLMAO

Is that supposed to be an insult or a slur or something?

Pragmatic truth is what it is.



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore



Is that supposed to be an insult or a slur or something?

No, everything isn't a slight at people, some do actually want to discuss topics with out knee jerk reactions.

The fact that you don't understand that someone asking you to stop being so sensitive isn't an insult or slur points to a sheltered life where everyone is a winner and name calling is considered the same as a bloody nose.
edit on 13-11-2016 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
In all of the common law jurisdictions (US, UK, Australia, etc.) these 'courts' are essentially enforceable under contract law. Barring any demonstration of inherent unfairness, they are also difficult to appeal.

Where at one time they seemed like a good idea and were generally only used in contracts between businesses, that has all changed now where almost everything is a click-through agreement and nearly every consumer contract contains an arbitration clause.



posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Oh really?

That's a mighty big assumption from someone who doesn't know me at all, anonymously typing away on the internet.

But hey, that's your problem.

So what is it you want to talk about? Equality? Fine.

The review of UK shariah courts suggested that there was inequality, but the simple fact is that anyone dissatisfied/aggrieved by any matter of law can take the matter to a normal UK court for a legally binding decision, as you've noted already.

So given that you've noted that, the answer to your question is that there are checks and balances in place for aggrieved parties, and if issues can be resolved without taking the expense/time of a court appearance, then so be it. Its the same for the Beth Din, the Catholic Church, Sports and business arbitration and binding private arrangements between individuals

Tthere may be cases of the system being abused, but there are cases of abuse in every system, including the UK courts themselves and international courts.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join