British 'sharia courts' under scrutiny

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: seasonal

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.

And this is the problem.
The vast majority of women going through these courts are coerced into it by their extended families and thus, still won't go to the real courts to challenge unfair decisions.

A large proportion of them have very limited English skills and are kept in the home or chaperoned when out and have no access to help.

It's easy to say "Let them appeal" but it is far harder for them to do so in the face of social ostracism and even violence.

There is no reason at all to support outdated religious courts in a modern, Western democracy.

originally posted by: seasonal
In the US their decisions are not legally binding are they?

These Sharia councils are not legally binding in the UK either.

Trouble is these "courts" are outside of the law and keep women segregated and outside of transparent legal sight. Some women may not be allowed to know (by their husbands and male "betters) that they have a choice.

If you are a Muslim woman in the UK you are already at a massive social disadvantage through community control, so finding a way to keep her out of the UK legal system is just another way to shut her up.

Religous courts must be regulated and contolled, if allowed at all.

These courts should have never been allowed to operate without some kind of british law oversight to ensure these people weren't trying to go overboard with violating personal rights.

Religion that has any kind of power is not a religion at all. It is labeled a cult or a witch trial.

originally posted by: andy06shake
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.

Then we would also have to ban Judge Rinder and then where would we be?

a reply to: ScepticScot

I've never watched the show, i take it its our version of Judge Judy?

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: seasonal
In the US their decisions are not legally binding are they?

These Sharia councils are not legally binding in the UK either.

Trouble is these "courts" are outside of the law and keep women segregated and outside of transparent legal sight. Some women may not be allowed to know (by their husbands and male "betters) that they have a choice.

If you are a Muslim woman in the UK you are already at a massive social disadvantage through community control, so finding a way to keep her out of the UK legal system is just another way to shut her up.

Religous courts must be regulated and contolled, if allowed at all.

And this is where we come back to the so called Integration and Diversity policy so many talk about in the UK that in the main is non - existent, tell me why any group of people want to be around each other? probably because they feel safe in a group of like minded people i would guess, hence the lack of integration and why we have communities in the UK of like minded people where they all congregate together, example, our muslim communities where the majority of the community is muslim (like i said non existent integration)

Now, in these communities, regardless of UK law, Sharia will be introduced as that is past practice from ancestry and the religion, they could choose to keep this secret or promote it, thankfully it is out in the open so we non muslims are aware of it.

That is their custom and practice and, if you live in a population of mainly muslim, so be it, that's their choice if they want to abide by it, they still have the fallback on UK law if need be, but to go this route would probably have them exiled from the community .......... its almost the same as unspoken gang rules, break the code and ...... you know the answer.

Where i am, Sharia does not exist ....... yet, then again, we have a population of less than 1% muslim people in the community, perhaps the less than 1% go somewhere else to mitigate? no idea, and if they do that is their choice.

Good luck to them

a reply to: corblimeyguvnor

Sharia councils block access to the law and institutions that are in place for all citizens, especially women.

If you accept that these councils are are necessity because of the cultural angle (i.e. "we're different"), then you may as well accept things like:

- Female genital mutilation ("... you cannot have a woman enjoying sex so it's good to cut her sex away").
- Educating girls ("... why bother, an educated woman is a dangerous woman and difficult to control")
- Child marriage ("... again, who cares what girls think").

I know they are different, but it's the way women are treated, or mistreated, that is the angle here.

originally posted by: seasonal
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.

Yeah this is the situation in the UK, both parties have to consent to being seen by Sharia court, but there's certainly a valid arguement and cause for investigation into how those suffering domestic violence/vulnerable could easily be guilt tripped into having to unwillingly attend.

The article isfull of lies in parts though - it's untrue little is known or that there's no way of knowing numbers as both rulings and outcomes are subject to public record, same as all courts - plus the buildings are registered with the Land Registry and official groups in order to be declared a Sharia court or council. Plus members and their registered interests are also publicly avaiable.

All of these ar obtainable from either local council or the information comissioner/freedom of information act - the paper just didn't bother and it's not a right or law that governent or local councils like people knowing about as it gives the public access to scrutinise all local government papers for one month per year, do six months investigation and submit any dodgy dealings to the police - 100s of county councilors have gone to jail for people using this law and exposing them taking bribes or money laundering occuring.
-------

Personally I think all religious courts should be banned including the whole bible hand oathy thing - people should have freedom to practice religion but you can't hae a functioning cohesive society unless everyone recieves the same treatment from the law.

the problem isn't the sharia court as much as it is that these marriages aren't recognized by the british gov't, there is no civil marriages, therefore there can be no civil divorce. so these women don't have the protections that are given to married couples if they divorce.. (share of the assets and such). these women can walk away anytime and act like they were never married, since well, the gov't never recognized their marriage.
but, that could be quite difficult to do when you are living in a kind of cultural isolation like it seems they are.

maybe they could make it mandatory that all these sharia marriages need to be registered, so they can be legitimized and recorded, and do a lot of educating as to why this is important for women.

a reply to: dawnstar

Muslim women are conned into going on these Sharia marriages. They are not legally recognised, so if/when the marriage falls to pieces the woman gets sod all. The man gets everything. No surprise that men run these councils and men have the say how women are treated in their communities.

It's all designed around control and exploitation of women. Women cannot get out of a "marriage" lest they lose everything. They have no legal protection Sharia councils are designed to perpetuate the victimisation of women in a religion and culture that is male dominated.

They should be banned, or their dealings fully transparent.