Dominic Grieve challenges sharia courts

The Sunday Times today reported that 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.

The decision has been welcomed by Inayat Bunglawala, the Muslim Council of Britain assistant secretary-general known for his past support and praise for Osama Bin Laden and the 1993 World Trade Centre bombers. But moves towards 'voluntary' sharia dispute resolution have been condemned by moderates as coercive, on grounds that anyone who decides against Islamic courts when they are made available risks being labeled an 'apostate'. Muslim women who rejected the sharia system - under which a man's testimony is valued twice as highly as a woman's - would risk being exiled from their communities, and violence.

Dominic Grieve, the Shadow Home Secretary has today challenged the legal right of British courts to recognise the rulings of sharia courts:

"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."

Comments

[Paul Oakley]

Pedant's Corner. If the "judgments" of sharia courts are to be recognised under the Arbitration Act 1996, then enforcement will take place, quite properly, under Rule 62.18 of the Civil Procedure Rules. An application must first be made to a proper court however.

This also applies to the remaining provisions of the Arbitration Acts of 1950 and 1975. In short, there is nothing new here and we should not be surprised that certain muslims wish to take advantage of the provisions.

This current news item is perhaps an example of the law of unintended consequences. In order to stop recognition of sharia courts we will have to reconsider the legislation as it relates to arbitration in its entirety.

[RealConservative]

The question must be what are we going to do about this when we're in power? Have parallel, and some might claim, potentially hostile, communities been allowed to develop? While I don't know all the legal complexities, have we now a nation within our nation with its own laws to which (in certain issues) our national laws are subservient?

[Eveleigh Moore-Dutton]

Following Paul Oakley's comments above the question arises as to whether the decisions of a sharia court could, under old fashioned English law be 'contracts' between the parties concerned and therefore - potentially - enforceable in English courts. Each case would have to be addressed on its own merits and if, for example, it could be shown that duress had been applied, the English courts could not enforce the sharia judgement.
Whether or not this situation is desirable or requires special safeguards is another matter.
I suspect that it could be shown that any unofficial 'court' could be shown to use methods, practise discrimination, racist or sexist, or allow evidence not admissable in English Courts the judgements would be discredited.

[snegchui]

Paul Oakley has it right.
But the worry is what coercion may be put on people to "voluntarily accept" any arbitration panel and its rulings as binding. I don't know what the answer to that is, but that is what to look at.
Does a State Court have the powers to overrule participation in an arbitration panel if it concludes that the interests of one of the parties will be severely impacted?

[Common Sense]

Dominic Grieve is, by instinct, an appeaser. Not because he's a coward but because he's naive - particularly about Islamism. So well done to him for finally drawing a line in the sand.

[Hardcore Conservative]

"British law is absolute and must remain so."

Really Mr Grieve? I take it then that you will not only repeal the ECHR now firmly embedded in our legal system, but also denounce the Convention and withdraw us from it completely (the only real way would probably entail leaving the EU), thus leaving parliament as the sovereign law making power.

Thought not. So another load of waffle then.

[Hardcore Conservative]

"British law is absolute and must remain so."

Really Mr Grieve? I take it then that you will not only repeal the ECHR now firmly embedded in our legal system, but also denounce the Convention and withdraw us from it completely (the only real way would probably entail leaving the EU), thus leaving parliament as the sovereign law making power.

Thought not. So another load of waffle then.

[Geoff]

Good for Dominic Grieve, but as with all of these statements - Greg Hands' unstable gravestones are another excellent example - we need to conclude them with A Conservative Government Will Stop This Nonsense.

[Eveleigh Moore-Dutton]

"Does a State Court have the powers to overrule participation in an arbitration panel if it concludes that the interests of one of the parties will be severely impacted?"

Posted by: snegchui | September 14, 2008 at 14:44

An English Court will, I believe, ask hard questions about why anyone would consent to be bound by the decisions of a body where the decisions are likely to be prejudicial to their interests. So if a woman agrees to be judged by a court that is likely to find against her or to dismiss or diminish the value of her evidence without good cause then the judge should ask him/herself how likely is it that she agreed to be put in that adverse position. What are the chances that she was under some form of duress when she 'agreed' to the arrangements? Duress would mean that the agreement would be set aside.

[Geoff]

But, Eveleigh Moore-Dutton, would the findings of the Sharia court not just be accepted and enforced by their community (and our dhimmis) regardless?

Would anyone from their religion dare to challenge apparently binding Sharia decisions to our legal framework afterwards? Community and social pressure would make it very unlikely.

We are already a long way down a very slippery slope and this is another dangerous blindfolded stumble.

[Patrick Ratnaraja]

This is Britain. People who don't like British law can always go and live in other Countries where the law is more suitable to them.

[Brian W]

We live in the UK although there are peculiarities relating to certain aspects of law that relate to Scotland. Surely then English law should be paramount and frankly EU law can go hang!! We do not want a series of 'community' laws since non english people have chosen to come and live in this country and must abide by our laws. If they don't like them then go back from whence they came

[beowolf]

What about the Beth Din? The problem with justice based on alien religious codes is that they frequently enforce behaviour that civilised people find repugnant including behaviour that quite rightly has been criminalised under English law. Any system of arbitration should have to be recognised under English law and be available to all not just people who regard themselves as special or different.

This government has singularly failed in it's responsibility to ensure openness and fairness in favour of appeasing and caving into the unreasonable demands of people who are unaquainted with our customs and civilised behaviour.
However, this government does bear sole responsibility for the current state of affairs and it behoves the next Tory government to do for civil society what Thatcher did for industrial relations, that is to remove special privileges and indulgences for so-called minorities and enforce parity between all participants in society. The alternative is to concede every thin edge of a new wedge until there is a fundamental breakdown in law and order as a result of irreconcilable differences and the situation becomes irreversible without bloodshed.

[Patrick Ratnaraja]

I can remember David Davis saying no no no to Sharia Courts in the UK at the 2006 conference. Can Dominic say the same thing? We must clearly say no to this nonsense.

I am not being anti Muslim in any way. I am only trying to say that if some People don't like the Law of a Country they should go and live in a Countrywhich is suitable to them.

The Conservatives should be very clear on this.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Patrick Ratnaraja - I agree with you!

[YMT]

Want to cement some votes? Make it clear to the public that a Conservative government will make sure that British law is the only rule of law allowed in this country.

[Ulster Tory]

Ulster Tory is inclined to agree with Patsy Sergeant. However, that kind of statement must be articulated in such a way it cannot be misinterpretated. We need 'Cameron's constitution'.

[Malcolm Stevas]

RealConservative writes:
"Have parallel, and some might claim, potentially hostile, communities been allowed to develop?"
Of course they have - it's called "multiculturalism". Where have you been? Big question is whether the Tory Party is for it, or agin it, or - as its recent history suggests - will merely opt for soggy equivocation, obfuscating the issue until it is in government. At which time it will, most probably, go in for more soggy equivocation.
My country continues to be taken away from me, and the Tories not only don't give a toss, they're part of the problem.

[Opinicus]

@RealConservative 14:27

Yes

Scotland

[James Maskell]

If these courts have a different constitution to that of our existing court system, how do they have any credibility to operate in this country? I guess in short...are shariah courts actually allowed to operate in the UK?

[passing leftie]

Sharia courts are legal through Major's Arbitration Act 1996. If their decisions go against the law of the land, a higher court will not uphold their decisions. For example, if a decision to challenge the division of property on gender lines reached a superior court, it would be thrown out.

You could legislate to ban them, but it would be very tricky. You could disallow all arbitration which was based on a books dictated by non-existent sexist, invisible gods to superstitious pre-Enlightment nomads. Oh, no, that would mean the end of Church courts, too, and we couldn't have that!

[FT]

The solution here is clear but controversial - arbitration courts not based on Christian law should be banned. The law of Britain (which, by the way, is English Law, not British Law) is based on Christianity. A failure to recognise this explicitly has allowed us to sleepwalk into segmentation.

Of course, the law can and should be altered to accomodate for minorities, as has happened in the past for Jews. But such alterations must come through Parliament where they can be debated on a case-by-case basis to ensure they do not conflict with British values.

For the record, I am an atheist.