British Government introduces Sharia Law

[Cort Haus]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

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.

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.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

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.”

The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future “seems unavoidable” in Britain.

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.

In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.

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.

Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.

Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a “parallel legal system” based on sharia for some British Muslims.

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.”

Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “I think it’s appalling. I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.”

There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.

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.

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.

Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.”

[Zevico]

Cool it, cat. The British government never introduced Sharia law. It simply allowed parties to go to binding arbitration courts outside the legal system, including 'sharia' [islamic law] and 'halacha' [jewish law] courts. They deal with a limited range of subjects.
Because of the introduction of the Act-which or may not have been intended to cover such cases, I don't know--there's really nothing the British government could have done here. It remains a [b] voluntary [b] binding system, like contract law. These courts do not impose any obligations on individual muslims without their consent, nor does it in any way introduce sharia law into England--no more than it does halacha, and I don't see you whining about that.
Edit: Never mind. Bugger the damn religious freaks. I say legislate and render the Act inapplicable to religious courts of any faith.

[germanos]

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

The question remains if not one of the parties is pressured to stay away from a British court.

[Dauphin]

I'm a bit confused by a number of things. The use of the term "British Courts" for one. Does this apply under Scottish law as well as English law?

The other thing to remember is that any decision made by a tribunal that contravenes English law is not enforceable.

[rmsharpe]

Ha! I guess things can always be worse, eh?

[DanQ]

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Zevico
Cool it, cat. The British government never introduced Sharia law. It simply allowed parties to go to binding arbitration courts outside the legal system,

Bingo; if both parties agree beforehand to binding arbitration and understands the rules it will use, even the U.S. would normally enforce it under the FAA. This would only be news if the courts themselves applied Sharia law.

[Sirotnikov]

Key questions are:
a) What happens when a person withdraws voluntary concent to the arbitration during or following the trial? How is it still binding?

b) What happens if a party is pressured and coerced to turn to the arbitration court instead of a more liberal state court?



p.s. - I'm not at all for Halacha courts being recognized by law.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
a) What happens when a person withdraws voluntary concent to the arbitration during or following the trial? How is it still binding?

Because of unequivocal public policy in favor of ADR processes including private arbitration. See e.g. the Federal Arbitration Act and its state analogues. I'm not aware of the UK enforcing arbitration agreements any less strictly.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
b) What happens if a party is pressured and coerced to turn to the arbitration court instead of a more liberal state court?

Obviously coercion, fraud, etc. would invalidate any contract, and an agreement to submit to binding arbitration is just a subspecies of contract.

[aneeshm]

We do this in India because the Muslims (or rather, their community "leaders") squealed like stuck pigs at the time of independence, demanding their separate laws on personal matters to "maintain community traditions", and because no government since then has had the guts to tell the Muslims to stuff it, and the entire community remains oppressed by regressive personal law because of this.

This is very, very bad.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Key questions are:
a) What happens when a person withdraws voluntary concent to the arbitration during or following the trial? How is it still binding?


b) What happens if a party is pressured and coerced to turn to the arbitration court instead of a more liberal state court?

The first one is too vague to answer- it's entirely dependent on the circumstances.

As for the second, coercion would give clear grounds for the arbitration verdict to be overruled by the courts.

[Sirotnikov]

As for the second, coercion would give clear grounds for the arbitration verdict to be overruled by the courts.

would it be easy enough to prove? would it be easy enough to complain?


also, what happens if some will say that they don't acknowledge anything not made by sharia court?

i'm saying that this is things you should expect.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

would it be easy enough to prove? would it be easy enough to complain?

It's effortless to complain. To win would depend on the circumstances.

also, what happens if some will say that they don't acknowledge anything not made by sharia court?

If said stance brings them into conflict with the secular laws of this land, they're out of luck.

[chequita guevara]

As Zevico has explained it, I don't really see a problem. It's nothing more than contract arbitration with religious draperies. Frankly, they probably could have done this without even resorting to a law. It's just arbitration with voluntarily agreed rules. I don't see why religious rules would necessarily be prohibited. And I'm no fan at all of religion.

[Zevico]

Notes-http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960023_en_2#pt1-pb1-l1g2

- Parties may leave the court jointly (i.e. if both parties decide no longer to be bound) at any point, or if they agreed to leave in a 'back out' clause of some sort in their written agreement (section 23);

- Arbitrators can still be removed if they are proven to be biased or incompetent. In the case of sharia/halacha, there's probably going to be a pool of judges who are members of a 'sharia/halacha court club' that has the power to replace the arbitrator; parties are required to 'exhaust any avenues of recourse' at the 'court club' first before going to court about it.

-"It shall be for the tribunal to decide all procedural and evidential matters, subject to the right of the parties to agree any matter"--s.34.

- If a party orders a witness to become involved, the order is enforceable with the permission of either the sharia court or the other party. The witness has to live in the UK for it to be enforceable, and he doesn't have to give any documents he wouldn't be forced to give to a court of law.

- The tribunal has the same powers as the court: to order a party to do or refrain from doing anything; and vary or set aside deeds (s48)-subject to the parties' agreement.
- Third parties affected by the agreement have different rights (section 72). I'm not sure how they might affect proceedings. Also, tired and have an essay to write.

I guess the important thing is to make parties aware of their legal rights. Make it compulsory, prior to signing up for sharia arbitration, for the parties to:
- get a pamphlet explaining their legal position and how their legal rights vary from their religious rights, contact details for local solicitors, etc [important for women especially with these inheritance laws]and/or a compulsory session with a solicitor to explain their legal rights.
- have a cool off period of a few days after signature so that people can realise the gravity of what they're doing.

It seems that these sharia courts also cover domestic violence incidents. I'm not sure how they'd go about that [+whether 'cool off periods' should apply in the case of domestic violence incidents] and I don't really think they should be allowed to intrude on it.