You should entitle your question “What Problem? I see no problem”, Talbot.
“that would be to muslim lads wouldnt it
the girls generally have more brains ....2
Er.. no, Peter. Whether they have more brains or not, the [Muslim] girls generally have no say in the matter and jourdain would be wasting her time speaking to them (if indeed she was allowed to).
“So the actual quote says the opposite of what The Express headline says!!!”
It depends what part of the quote you are reading, Eddie. I read this bit:
“Many British people of different faiths follow religious codes and practices, and benefit a great deal from the guidance they offer.''
Which suggests to me that Mrs May believes that people following an alien religion here in the UK derive benefit from their practices. But then she says, almost as an afterthought:
“A number of women have reportedly been victims of what appear to be discriminatory decisions taken by Sharia councils, and that is a significant concern''.
So in other words, let’s not worry too much about the large numbers of women who have been badly treated by “courts” (or “Muslim Arbitration Tribunals” to give them their proper title) which, by and large, they are compelled to use rather than go through the proper legal system. So long as some people obtain some benefits from religious indoctrination it’s all OK. I think your proposed libel action might struggle.
Sharia “courts” (and Beth Din ones as well, so as to be clear) have no place in the UK. Far from being an “acceptable alternative” to the proper legal system, the women using them have no choice at all. They are controlled by the men in their communities, have no access to proper legal advice and so are forced to have their affairs determined by these tribunals (made up exclusively of men, natch). Their rulings are perverse to the proper law of the UK and discriminate heavily against women. The government, instead of outlawing them and making it clear that parallel legal systems are not permitted, grant them official status by making them acceptable tribunals under the Arbitration Act. The Act says:
“The provisions of [the Act] 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.”
It is quite clear that, when dealing with matrimonial matters, one of the parties (the woman) is not “free to agree how their disputes are resolved”. Furthermore there is ample evidence that these Councils are exceeding their powers and many are granting “divorces” (if indeed the marriage was valid in the first place) which are not in accordance with UK equality principles. They can thus hardly be said to be "impartial".
The existence of Sharia Courts (and Beth Din and any other similar tribunals) in the UK is a disgrace. They are principally run by men, for men. They operate on medieval religious principles which have no place in the 21st Century. For the UK government to sanction them as “Arbitration Councils” is an abrogation of their responsibilities towards 50% of the population. Mrs May needs to choose her words more carefully when commenting on something, the very existence of which is so disgraceful.