I was concerned to read recently in the New Scotsman that there are discussions taking place about the possible introduction of Sharia courts in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Qamar Bhatti, director of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT), which runs the courts, admitted discussions were taking place with lawyers and Muslim community groups.
If this happens, the Scottish sharia courts will be added to the existing number of five sharia courts, ruling on civil cases from divorce to domestic violence and financial disputes, that have been operating for more than a year in London, Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester and at MAT headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire.
The courts have legal powers and deal with a range of issues including marriage, divorce, family and financial disputes. Their decisions are enforceable through the county courts or high courts.
I have three objections to the continued introduction of such courts.
First, it does seem ludicrous, for all sorts of reasons, to introduce a legal system designed to run alongside an existing system. At some point in the future, if it hasn’t already done so, the two systems will be in conflict. It would be possible for someone to be found guilty under one ruling and found innocent under another. That is a recipe for confusion and for duplicate and rising legal expenses.
Under our existing system, there is some broad recognition and acceptance of the standards of training for those involved, and some form of public accountability. While there are doubtless some well-trained and respected individuals operating sharia courts, the training of those operating the courts may not be acceptable to the majority of the population, even if they are accepted by the Muslim community. There is unlikely to be any form of public scrutiny or accountability.
Secondly, I have major concerns that such courts may have a radically different view of justice and human rights to what would be accepted by many people in liberal democracies. Most religions have patriarchal structures and most do not have a good current track record when it comes to their rulings, teachings, and practices about women and homosexuality.
Women’s domestic violence groups have also voiced fears, saying traditional sharia law arbitration is “dangerous and inappropriate” in cases of abuse. A spokeswoman for Shakti Women’s Aid said: ”We fear that many female victims of domestic abuse may be pressurised by their families and partners to accept the rulings of the sharia court as final and prevent them from seeking legal assistance from the Scottish court system, which might force them to continue living within abusive relationships.”
Thirdly, the introduction of sharia courts, and the acceptance of a dual legal system run by a religious group, makes it difficult to object to other groups who may want to introduce courts to settle disputes on their own religious grounds. If fundamentalist Christians, for example, wanted to set up their own courts to rule on disputes between their believers, would you feel happy about it if you were a Christian wife wanting to escape from abusive marriage, or a lesbian wanting a divorce from a Christian man?
Individuals, of course, are entitled to believe what they want, but a quick glance through history or across the world today will show that human rights in the West do need protecting from the religious consensus.
Despite the threat of the above, there was one ray of sunshine this weekend. The latest video from comedian Pat Condell, Welcome to Saudi Britain, which had been removed from YouTube following complaints from Muslim activists, has been re-instated following massive protests from defenders of free speech.
YouTube eventually relented and the video is now up again and receiving a massive response. If you haven’t seen it yet, catch it here.
Here in the USA we have to deal with simple stuff like the annual bogus War on Christmas. In the meantime, you Brits are dealing with some serious issues regarding multiculturalism, freedom of religion and the like. I don’t envy you at all.
It seems nonsensical to me. We have a national legal system and that is what we should use. Where would it all end? We’d have legal systems by all the different religions and then I guess all sorts of different bands of people might want one too - black people, white people, gay people, disabled people, unemployed people. It makes little sense to me and potentially as you say could cause conflict between the different systems.
It’s not to say that I don’t think some of the sharia methods or judgements are not sound - some are better than in the conventional legal system, although many are not - just that it is not possible to run two systems covering the same issues.
I agree that it is inappropriate to have two systems of justice running in parallel within the same country. Conflict is inevitable for the simple reason that the desire to create sharia courts arises from Muslims wanting courts run on different principles from British law courts.
However, I notice that there already exists a minor example of independent application of the law in the form of marriage ceremonies. You can get married in any of a number of religious institutions without any obvious reference to the civil authority which nevertheless underpins the resultant contract.
Sharia courts might be acceptable if firstly, their sphere of operation (and the penalties they could impose) were strictly limited and, secondly, all parties to a sharia court action gave their informed consent in advance.
Turning the coin over, so to speak, think of the anger and resentment of Europeans subjected to the processes of law in Muslim countries. If you were charged with illegal possession of alcohol in Saudi Arabia, for example, wouldn’t wish that there was an alternative “European court” by which you could elect to be tried instead of the Saudi sharia court?
Yes, I’m playing devil’s advocate. I think a nation should have one system of justice and one alone, not several. I hope some future government will have the guts to reverse the decision to allow sharia courts to operate but I don’t expect any of our current crop of pusillanimous appeasers to show that degree of courage.