Parallel legal systems must not be allowed to exist
The press release on the One Law For All event today:
On Thursday 10 December 2015, Southall Black Sisters (SBS), One Law for All, Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation (IKWRO), Centre for Secular Space and British Muslims for Secular Democracy will attend 10 Downing Street to hand deliver a letter signed by nearly 400 individuals and organisations urging David Cameron to hold an inquiry into the discriminatory nature of Sharia ‘courts’ and other religious arbitration forums.
These women’s and human rights organisations also led successful campaigns preventing public authorities such as the governing body of UK Universities (UUK) and the Law Society from incorporating aspects of Sharia laws into their public policies. With regards the question of parallel legal systems, they argue that in these times of draconian austerity measures and cuts to legal aid, these unaccountable, arbitrary and religious ‘courts’ presided over by fundamentalist religious forces are increasingly filling the vacuum that is created. They dispense a second rate system of justice that denies vulnerable women and children access to equality and human rights.
Campaigners are calling on the government to exclude Sharia and all other religious forums, including the Jewish Beth Din from presiding over divorce and family matters; to reinstate legal aid; to stop the repeal of the Human Rights Act and to re-affirm the principle of the separation of religion and the law. The law is a key component of securing justice for citizens and one law for all.
Pragna Patel of SBS says:
“Discriminatory religious codes are very much a part and parcel of the continuum of domestic and gender based violence and other abuses that BME women face in their daily lives since they reinforce discrimination, deny exit and prevent women from accessing justice or from asserting their right to equality…For these reasons and more, parallel legal systems must not be allowed to exist.”
Maryam Namazie of One Law for All says:
“Dismantling religious courts isn’t a denial of people’s right to religion, it’s a defence of human rights, and particularly women’s rights vis-a-vis the religious-Rightwing and their attempts at restricting women’s rights in the family. By allowing religious courts to operate, we are saying that Muslim or Jewish women do not have the same rights as others in this country. This is unacceptable.”
Gita Sahgal of Centre for Secular Space says:
“Sharia Councils drag women into living out a fundamentalist vision of Islam. They do this by promoting ‘Islamic law’ as higher than the law of the land and by marketing divorce as a solution for a problem they have created. It is a disgrace that they are tolerated by the authorities and allowed to become charities. All parallel legal systems are discriminatory and undermine women’s rights under the law. It is time that they are dealt with.”
Diana Nammi of IKRWO says:
“The whole premise of religious ‘courts’ is discrimination to women, they represent a major barrier to women’s rights and not only do they deny women justice, they also distance women from the mainstream court system and safety measures, such as civil protection orders, which can have dire consequences. Given that religious ‘courts’ are community based and often mediate, there are dangerous implications including locking women within violent marriages and “honour” based violence. The government must prioritise women’s safety by ensuring access to mainstream justice and preventing the proliferation and deepening entrenchment of these parallel legal systems.”
Nasreen Rehman of British Muslims for Secular Democracy says:
“Government, Parliament and the courts have a duty to protect the rights and prevent the exploitation of the most vulnerable members of society. But all too often we find they abrogate this responsibility by condoning parallel systems of justice that promote cruel and discriminatory practices perpetuated by obscurantists and fanatics in many faith communities – often, falsely pleading divine sanction as a smokescreen for cruelty. The only way to ensure equality and justice is to stand together for clarity and ‘one law for all.’ This does not mean that we do not accept religious, cultural and ethnic diversity; rather we raise our voices against injustices perpetuated in the guise of faith and culture.”
For more information, contact:
Pragna Patel
Southall Black Sisters
pragna@southallblacksisters.co.uk
020 8571 9595
@SBSisters
Maryam Namazie
One Law for All
maryamnamazie@gmail.com
077 1916 6731
@MaryamNamazie
There are reasons sharia courts should be banned. But in principle, arbitration that follows some random code, like the Law of Lek or whatever, are fine as long as they are optional and don’t violate any applicable laws. In practice it’s hard to imagine one that won’t clash with the law by either allowing or requiring something illegal, but in principal people can voluntarily agree to follow the rules of their club and use arbitrators in the club to do it.
I applaud the courage of these women, however I don’t think Cameron is up to the job.
Shutting down these tribunals will be a very nasty business and for several reasons. The police in some areas of the UK ( Birmingham for example) have virtually no contact with and receive little or no cooperation from the Muslim community. They are parallel societies intent on maintaining their self-imposed segregation, patriarchal structures included. The women within these enclaves are basically trapped and are under enormous pressure to accept the judgements of these tribunals. They are also more or less forbidden from availing themselves of the benefits of secular jurisprudence.
What can Cameron really do? How are those promoting one law for all to reach these women? Attempting to do that would mean bypassing patriarchal elements/individuals/organizations which cannot be easily bypassed and which would take great offense were there ever attempts to do so.
I can’t of any way of doing this without igniting a firestorm of protest and indignation.
In any case, Cameron is a careerist and a coward. He will continue to kick the problem forward for as long as he can.
One victory was the Law Society dropping guidelines for making shariah-compliant wills, which discriminate against women. Sara Khan of Inspire campaigned on that.
My work (a law firm) has a diversity week. Sara Khan was the guest speaker – a very good one, and she talked about this. My work makes a great thing about being sensitive to other cultures & religions & I thought it was an indication how things have moved on. A few years they would not have touched her with a pair of tongs – it would have seemed anti-multi-cultural.
When the Law Society first published these guidelines it caused a great stir, with the usual useful idiots like the Archbishop of Canterbury (!) saying perhaps we should “accept” shariah law & the usual defences in the Guardian but it aroused enormous hostility in the general public.
I think that singling out Sharia specifically would not be as good as making a rule that *any* arbitration courts have to meet a standard of fairness to all parties. Which would then also help out in employee/employer arbitration and any other situation where the party with more power essentially forces the party with less power to go to a biased arbitration forum rather than a court.
In theory no other arbitration body – they are not really courts though that’s what they call themselves – can enforce a judgement which is contrary to British law. The problems which arise include the many thousands who might need to know that and don’t, because the so-called courts make sure they don’t.
Appealing to a civil court would not be easy but it is possible, e.g with a will or divorce settlement which does not conform to gender equality laws in such matters.