Which Outfit For My Interview?
Jobs & Education3 mins ago
Petition Calling For Sharia Reform Delivered To No 10
In Sharia courts women are seen as having half the worth of men and are trapped in ‘marital captivity’.
Can the government wield any influence, and if so, how?
http://
Can the government wield any influence, and if so, how?
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
What do these women expect the government to do, if they are still prepared to live the life that they do?
But apart from that, how have things managed to get to this, all laws apart from those passed by parliament should be deemed unlawful, and anyone wishing to implement such laws should be arrested.
Stop all this kowtowing towards minorities in case they get offended, get a backbone Britain, you didn't become one of the greatest nations on earth by carrying on in the manner that you do today.
But apart from that, how have things managed to get to this, all laws apart from those passed by parliament should be deemed unlawful, and anyone wishing to implement such laws should be arrested.
Stop all this kowtowing towards minorities in case they get offended, get a backbone Britain, you didn't become one of the greatest nations on earth by carrying on in the manner that you do today.
Tower Hamlets, an East London Muslim enclave whose streets are already plastered with posters declaring, "You are entering a Sharia controlled zone: Islamic rules enforced" (below) and where Muslim imams now issue death threats to women who refuse to wear the Muslim veil.
http://
This issue runs far deeper than to simply suggest that Sharia Courts are merely a form of arbitration. It might be argued that a Sharia Court is a “properly convened tribunal” under the Arbitration Act which Corby mentions. However, I doubt it. I won’t bore readers with details from all 110 Sections and four Schedules from the Act. But two sections are worth particular mention. The introduction sets out general principles:
"The provisions of this Part are founded on the following principles, and shall be construed accordingly—
(a) the object of arbitration is to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal without unnecessary delay or expense;
(b) the parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest;
Note (a) “.. to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal..”. It is unlikely in the extreme that a Sharia Court arbitrating on family and matrimonial matters (of the type mentioned in this question) would be fair or likely to act impartially. For a start, because of the male centric setup of the Sharia system (and Islam in general) no females will be involved. Secondly, it will rule in accordance with Islamic principles where women are decidedly second class citizens (if indeed they are even afforded that status) and a fair resolution would thus be impossible.
Then consider (b) “the parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved,…”. Women will have no say how such disputes are resolved. They will be told (by their male relatives) that the matter will go to the (male dominated) Sharia Court.
This feeds smoothly into Section 16 which describes the procedure for appointment of arbitrators. Here it states that each of the arbitrees will contribute equally to the choice of composition and selection of the arbitration panel. There is no way on earth that Muslim women appellants will have any say in such matters. I would suggest that on these two bases alone Sharia Courts do not comply with the 1996 Act.
However, all that is largely beside the point. The UK has a perfectly robust and mature system of dealing with family and matrimonial disputes based on copious statutes and case law precedents. Not perfect, I will agree, but certainly not one that discriminates enormously against half the participants simply on the basis of their gender or one which is presided over exclusively by men.
To suggest that Muslim women “agree” to be bound by decisions made by Sharia courts is simply laughable. They have no say in the matter; they have none of the usual safeguards that participants in court proceedings have; there is no control over fairness or compliance with UK legal principles ; Sharia courts are not monitored or regulated to ensure their impartiality (indeed, if they were, they would quickly be banned as they clearly contravene much of the UK’s equality legislation.
In short they have no place in the UK and nor, for that matter, does Islam.
"The provisions of this Part are founded on the following principles, and shall be construed accordingly—
(a) the object of arbitration is to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal without unnecessary delay or expense;
(b) the parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest;
Note (a) “.. to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal..”. It is unlikely in the extreme that a Sharia Court arbitrating on family and matrimonial matters (of the type mentioned in this question) would be fair or likely to act impartially. For a start, because of the male centric setup of the Sharia system (and Islam in general) no females will be involved. Secondly, it will rule in accordance with Islamic principles where women are decidedly second class citizens (if indeed they are even afforded that status) and a fair resolution would thus be impossible.
Then consider (b) “the parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved,…”. Women will have no say how such disputes are resolved. They will be told (by their male relatives) that the matter will go to the (male dominated) Sharia Court.
This feeds smoothly into Section 16 which describes the procedure for appointment of arbitrators. Here it states that each of the arbitrees will contribute equally to the choice of composition and selection of the arbitration panel. There is no way on earth that Muslim women appellants will have any say in such matters. I would suggest that on these two bases alone Sharia Courts do not comply with the 1996 Act.
However, all that is largely beside the point. The UK has a perfectly robust and mature system of dealing with family and matrimonial disputes based on copious statutes and case law precedents. Not perfect, I will agree, but certainly not one that discriminates enormously against half the participants simply on the basis of their gender or one which is presided over exclusively by men.
To suggest that Muslim women “agree” to be bound by decisions made by Sharia courts is simply laughable. They have no say in the matter; they have none of the usual safeguards that participants in court proceedings have; there is no control over fairness or compliance with UK legal principles ; Sharia courts are not monitored or regulated to ensure their impartiality (indeed, if they were, they would quickly be banned as they clearly contravene much of the UK’s equality legislation.
In short they have no place in the UK and nor, for that matter, does Islam.
Some of the worst crimes committed in the name of islam are against muslims. I have some sympathy with muslims who have this barbaric nonsense drummed into them from birth but I don't understand, usually left wing, people who with the benefit of a largely secular, western education continually defend this moronic cult.
Typical bury head in sand reaction from the 'look at us we're not in the least bit racist' crew.
These brave women should be given every bit of aid available so they can be freed from their archaic lifestyles.
“We want women to access the mainstream justice system,”
That's not too much to ask for is it!
These brave women should be given every bit of aid available so they can be freed from their archaic lifestyles.
“We want women to access the mainstream justice system,”
That's not too much to ask for is it!
NAOMI as I have said, their decisions are binding as long as they do not go against legislation in the UK and where they do, action should be taken but that does not mean the entire system needs scrapping.
BALDRIC we are discussing the UK and Sharia "courts", if we rarely hear about barbaric sentences does that not mean they happen rarely or are you guessing that it is only the tip of an iceberg? For an ex-policeman, I would have thought that evidence and not supposition would have been your watchword.
BALDRIC we are discussing the UK and Sharia "courts", if we rarely hear about barbaric sentences does that not mean they happen rarely or are you guessing that it is only the tip of an iceberg? For an ex-policeman, I would have thought that evidence and not supposition would have been your watchword.
Latest Posts
News5 mins ago
Body & Soul6 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Should I Be Pushing For More Tests...
Body & Soul13 mins ago
Crosswords17 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.