Conservative frontbench reemphasises opposition to sharia law

Bridget Prentice, a junior minister at the Ministry of Justice has confirmed that Sharia councils will have the right to settle disputes between two 'consensual' parties, where they relate to money, property and access to children. By the letter of the law, these decisions and ruling will have no legal force. But in practice, where Sharia councils have ruled on a matter, English family courts will be now expected to rubber stamp their decisions.

Nick Herbert and Paul Goodman have both come out in strong opposition to this decision:

Nick Herbert, the shadow justice secretary, said: "There can be no place for parallel legal systems in our country.

"It is vital that in matrimonial disputes where a Sharia council is involved, women's rights are protected and judgments are non-binding."

Another Conservative spokesman, Paul Goodman, the shadow minister for communities and local government, accused the Government of keeping the public in the dark and warned: "There must be one British law for everyone."

Neither are quoted explaining why Sharia courts should not to be welcomed or why women's rights should be a concern in them at all. David Green of Civitas is however quoted noting that such courts do not consider the voice of a woman equal to that of a man, nor treat men and women equally under the law.

9.45am: In his speech last month to the Conservative Party Conference, Dominic Grieve made clear the Tory position:

"For all its tough talk on terrorism, the government is dropping the ball on security and radicalisation. Lax on fanatical preachers. Silent on sharia courts. Let me make our position clear. Sharia courts can be given no authority over criminal and family law matters in Britain. Our law must reign supreme. The next Conservative government will make sure it does."

Comments

[Edward Huxley]

If these people don`t like our lsws they should leave our country and the sooner the better.

[asquith]

Sharia law, like the Republicans in America, would be one unending nightmare. Worse, it would be a betrayal of vulnerable people such as homosexual, women & free thinkers that I, as a left-liberal, am concerned to protect against reactionary nonsense of this kind.

People seek these shores fleeing theocracy, & they deserve our protection. They value living in a civilised society & so do I. It is an unending disgrace how successive governments, Labour & Conservative, have utterly failed to defend secularism.

I don't understand how the government goes straight to these unelected community elders for an opinion. If I were a Muslim, my blood would boil at the idea that some bigoted reactionary spoke for me.

They can surely see that a secular society is better than places such as Iran & Saudi Arabia, where is their outrage?

In 50 years time idiocy like this will not exist, & people will wonder why we ever allowed it in the first place. I believe that fundamentalism is a dying beast & this is our last kick.

This also indicates the need to wean ourselves off oil, so that we will no longer be beholden to states like Saudi Arabia, as Johann Hari indicates that we are now. If we can't find alternative sources of fuel, we'll just have to cut down, thereby saving money, conserving the environment, & breaking free from the people who are orchestrating this shyte to begin with.

Although, as I said, I am left-wing & hold liberal views, I am looking for a strong reaction from Dominic Grieve about this & the constant state intrusions into our lives by New Labour. But I shan't be getting my hopes up! Yet, in 50 years, it will all be banished & we'll be happier in a liveable world.

[David]

"If these people don`t like our lsws they should leave our country and the sooner the better"

So, if I don't like the laws this government passes, I should leave the country?

[Tanuki]

"There must be one British law for everyone."

Does that mean we're going to disregard the significant differences between the English and the Scottish legal systems too?

[Edward Huxley]

The point I was trying to make David was that you cannot expect to go to live in a country and get it to change the laws to suit you. This is still a free country, although sometimes I wonder.

You are free to leave us anytime you like.

[Jelly Belly]

You missed out this story on George Osborne from the press this morning

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/article53313.ece

[David]

"The point I was trying to make David was that you cannot expect to go to live in a country and get it to change the laws to suit you."

So if I move, say, to France to live and become a citizen, I shouldn't be allowed to vote and demand laws that I might like, or vote against the imposition of certain laws?

[David]

"You are free to leave us anytime you like."

Oooh, big man.

[Isabel]

There's a difference between voting on already existing laws or laws which come under the umbrella of the entire country, and demanding a separate legal system. How hard is that to see? It's like moving to Iran or another theocracy and demanding secular courts. I agree with Edward, if you can't comply with the laws here, go somewhere where you can.

[Straight Talker]

Sharia law is all too often a backward and retrograde legal system. Some of its key principles, outlined below, are completely against Britains law, developed over centuries :

- a womans testimony is half of that of a man
- second class status for non-muslims (dhimmis) who have degrading restrictions placed on their freedoms.
- stoning for adultery
- four witnesses to a rape
- death for apostasy.

None of the five senior schools of Sunni Islam or the two schools of Shia Islam reject these teachings, they are all validated and approved.

Any "liberals" out there care to identify which of the above is incorrect. Perhaps they mught like to outline which of the above they view as being beneficial to equality and cohesion?

Does this Government seriously think that these Sharia courts view this concession as the end point? For Muslims, Sharia law is not a selective menu that you can pick and choose from. Its the whole menu, its not optional and there is not an alternative menu. This cowardly and stupid Government has now strengthened the hands of hardliners who sense weakness. There will be more demands for Sharia law masquerading as "equality"

Which muslims actually asked for these courts ? How representative are they ? When did Parliament debate this matter ? Will Hindus and Sikhs be allowed the same priveleges?

The sooner this reprehensible Government is out and and its poisonous and divisive ideology of multiculturalism is ended the sooner Britain can be an easier country to live in.

[Ken Stevens]

Tanuki
"Does that mean we're going to disregard the significant differences between the English and the Scottish legal systems too?"

It would have been nice, after 300 years, to have evolved a consolidated UK legal framework that embodied the best of both systems.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Asquith @ 08.08 - 'Yet in 50yrs, it will all be banished & and we'll be happier in a liveable world'

Don't you think, Asquith, that people were saying that 50yrs ago....??

Regarding oil and Saudi Arabia, another commodity that SA seems to have plenty of is money, and I seem to remember Brown paying a visit to that country quite recently..... The words quid pro quo come to mind.

[Iain]

Words are fine but what are they going to do about the fact that we have evidence Sharia Courts are already settling criminal matters, yet what has Westminster done about it ? NOTHING!

[C List and Proud]

Sharia is homophobic, racist, sexist and barbaric to animals, all the things the left claim to fight against. However, the first law of Politcal Correctness overrides all.

That law - defend the weak against the strong, even if the weak are in the wrong - demands that the oppressed minority is given its way. Hence the willingness to subvert the rights of women and others to the "greater good" of allowing the minority to set its own rules.

I'm afraid Islam needs its "Enlightenment". First should be an acceptance that the words of the Prophet can and should be "interpreted" to suit the modern world. Strange how the only ones allowed to "interpret" the Prophet are those who do so to justify murder, terrorism and barbarity, even though TNT wasn't invented in the 11th Century!

[Jon Gale]

"So if I move, say, to France to live and become a citizen, I shouldn't be allowed to vote and demand laws that I might like, or vote against the imposition of certain laws?"

Yes. Precisely. Millions of English people moving to France and then demanding their own common law system would be just as unacceptable.

Non-nationals (should) have no right to change the laws of the nation-state they move to.

[Dave B]

As if 95% of Muslim women have any say in what happens to them!
Consent? The women will have no other choice BUT to consent.

A dark day for Britain. Who says violence gets you nowhere? Seems to be working wonders for Islam as we allow it to swamp this non-Islamic country and the 96% or so percent of people in it who are not Muslim!

Sharia courts...State funding and or Government support for more and more mosques and Islamic schools...exclusive benefits for Muslim men for otherwise illegal multiple wives?
Seems 7/7 did all it set out to do!

[David (One of many)]

Jelly Belly, that GO story is about two years old. The NOTW has simply reheated it.

Nice to see the Conservative position on this is very clear and firm, as it needs to be.

[Dr Charles Tannock MEP]

It is curious that the Strasbourg European Court of Human Rights and I believe very recently the UK Law Lords have both ruled Sharia law incompatible with western values and human rights jurisprudence so I fail to understand how any UK politician or senior Anglican cleric can be in favour of such an alien system of adjudication having any part to play in our legal system.

[Edward Huxley]

Dr. Tannock is right, and while we are on the subject of laws, what about the deluge of unwanted legislation we keep getting from the European Union?

[zain]

how quickly the veneer of compassionate conservatism dissipates!

do you know the rality of talmudic law? that is allowed in mediation? tell me, what is the right of a woman under talmudic law?

[thomas]

Because the legal systems of the EU are a sham, to be used by governments as and when they see fit. For example, Sarkozy's trophy getting that red brigade murderess off.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Would 'zain' be muslim by any chance!? It can be difficult for a wife to obtain a divorce under Talmudic law, but the Jewish woman is much more equal under Talmudic law, compared to the Muslim woman under Sharia law AND, I have never heard of a Jewish woman having to share her husband with three other women - under the Law!!!!

[Votedave]

This is so obvious in its lunacy that it's a wonder how anyone in government could possibly support it.
Bridget Prentice should have brought this matter before the House of Commons, but as usual, the government shows casual disregard for Parliament. Let's take another example of this. By moving Prime Minister's Questions to Wednesday, the House is almost always empty towards the end of each week.

[Resident 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.

We've had Beth Din for the Jews for centuries, to resolve civil disputes, covering issues as diverse as business and divorce.

We've got church courts, too.

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!