From the Times online
ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.
The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.
It should be unneccessary to point out the evils this will bring to the community at large, and specifically to women. But here goes anyway.
Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.
So a group of religious men (and it will always be men), will make ruling based on Mohammed’s desert survival guide, and regardless of how unfair it is the existing courts system will back it to the hilt?
Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.”
Crap and bollocks, they are a method of ensuring religious control in a secular society. It is an act of extreme negligence that the government in the Uk hasnt legislated to close off this loophole. It allows disputes which should be managed by the courts in a unbiased manner to be open to abuse.
(there are quite a few youtubes on this subject…worth a look by itself.
More below the fold.
In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.
So the UK’s highest judge sees no problem with a parallel justice system, with inbuilt bias against women being set up? Where are the lawyers groups, usually so quick to criticize any legislation which might disadvantage any group? Where is the outrage from the feminists?
It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.
Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. “All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,” said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.
Great, so does that mean amputation, as long as both parties agree to it? Im sorry but if a crime is committed it appears before the only law system in a country and is punished. Id imagine the police and pollie like it as it will see a nice reduction in their statistics for Muslim groups, also allowing them to crow how “peaceful and settled” those communities are. There is a system in place for regulating community affairs, this is just a form of control over their own people so they dont drift from their own isolated mindset.
Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.”
Ok hes talking the talk, but if they get government will he do anything about it?
Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.
The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.
Absolutely in accordance with the Koran, this isnt a “strange ruling” it is the absolute Koranic sanctioned norm. Where is Germaine Greer and the rest of the paragons of the feminist movement? Where is the human rights organisations challenging this through the courts? Why the sudden lack of protection for one half of the population based on sex, and religion? Heres Germaines column she writes for the Guardian, a platform she uses to excoriate subjects such as 18th century poets obsessions with anal sex and how an artists pictures of cars exposes the “heart of darkness of all young men” Ive gone back 7 pages and havent seen any real reference to Islam in the articles posted.
Mrs Greer addressing the issue yesterday….
In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.
In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.
Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.
So mafia bosses convicted should be able to claim they were just mentoring their own community if a person for some reason or another withdraws the charge? The women face losing the kids (the man generally obtains custody of the children under Shriah), being disinherited, forbidden to mary another man and ostracised from her community.
How could it possibly be a good thing to hand over criminal prosecutions to a religious body?
The following is an excerpt from a legal site dealing with shariah. In particular check the section 7 through to 9 dealing with divorce and children. Where is this compatible with the rule of law for the rest of the UK system?
A handful of highlights.
Shari’a courts do not recognize divorces obtained in secular courts of law. In addition, an Islamic divorce obtained outside the home country of the husband may not be recognized by that country’s courts.
Under Shari’a, a father is the natural guardian (al waley) of his children’s persons and property. Shia doctrine also gives the child’s paternal grandfather joint guardianship. According to Shari’a, a child’s paternal grandfather is his or her natural guardian after the father.
A mother generally has a right to physical, not legal, custody of her child until the child reaches the age of custodial transfer, at which time the child is returned to the physical custody of the father or the father’s family. (so shes to be used like a cow, lovely)
To have physical custody, most juristic schools maintain that a mother must not be married to a stranger (a non-relative) or to a relative who is not in a prohibited degree of relation to the child. The Shias, however, prohibit a mother from retaining custody if she marries any other man as long as the child’s father is alive and eligible for custody.While only the Shafii and Shia schools require a mother to be Muslim in order to have physical custody over a Muslim child born to a Muslim father, the Hanafi school considers denouncement of Islam (apostasy) a sufficient ground for denying a mother who was previously Muslim her right to custody. Jurists of the other Sunni schools generally only require that the mother raise the child in the Islamic faith. However, the Sunni schools maintain that a mother loses her right to custody if there is reason to believe that she would influence the child’s religious beliefs so as to compromise his or her Islamic upbringing. Examples of this would be the mother taking the child to church, teaching the child the articles of another religion, or performing the rites of another religion in front of him or her.
Where is the outrage from the feminists? Im by no means a fan of the “squat over a mirror man haters brigade, but this is gender apartheid and massive injustice. There are over a billion Muslims in the world, does cultural sensitivity mean Greer and her ilk are happy to see 500million women disadvantaged?
If so they disgust me.