Sharia arbitration in Helsinki.
Latest Updates: sharia arbitration RSS
-
thabet
-
thabet
Pickled Politics highlights the launch of a new ‘anti-radicalisation’ organisation in Scotland:
Azeem Ibrahim, a Glasgow-born entrepreneur with a £60m fortune, will establish the Solas foundation in the city’s West End. It will be run by academics Shaykh Amer Jamil and Shaykh Ruzwan Mohammad, who will visit universities to lecture to Muslims.
Azeem Ibrahim seems like a smart chap. Apart from being a millionaire, he runs the Ibrahim Foundation; is a fellow at a Harvard school; and advises the government. He even penned a sensible response to the Civitas report on sharia arbitration.
-
thabet
Writing about sharia arbitration in the US, Luke Goodrich of The Beckett Fund says:
I think he is right about this. There are clearly difficulties in sharia arbitration in the UK. But, as I have previously argued, specifically denying Muslims this legal avenue that is open to others is not be acceptable. Those who want an end to any form of religious arbitration should campaign for a change in the law that allows such panels to operate.
At the same time, there is nothing wrong in putting pressure on the state not to abandon its obligations to the vulnerable, and putting the activities of these panels under (well-informed) scrutiny (not hyped-up tabloid nonsense).
-
thabet
The problem of sharia arbitration in Britain:
I don’t know about the other details the writer highlights. It seems like a complaint about the ’social pressure’, something which is hard to define. Trying to use the blunt instrument of the law against something like being shunned from your community’s peers would be disastrous.
-
thabet
Arguments, such these (1, 2, 3), which seem to call for an arbitary ban on so-called sharia “courts”* are wrong.
The right way to argue against sharia arbitration panels, if that is what someone wants to do, is to campaign for a change in the law which allows them to operate in the first place, although a better method will probably be to work for a more rigorous application of the law in the operation of these panels**.
I think it is right to express concern about the way these panels appear to be operating, but trying to argue that we must find special reasons to deny Muslims the right to engage in perfectly legal activities*** is against the very notion of the rule of law and completely undemocratic****.
*I suggest we stop calling them “courts” altogether. Doing so gives them an aura of legal stature they do not posses. They are arbitration panels.
**For example one legal scholar has argued that that “the state should seek to apply all human rights and anti-discrimination legislation rigorously to avoid structural discrimination in the operation of these minority courts of arbitration”.
***See this discussion in the comments from people who know what they’re talking about.
****Is there an argument which says they’re illegal? I don’t know and have never come across one.
-
thabet
Going back to the “sharia courts” story, which was first reported in a regional newspaper but has now hit the national newspapers, I missed a bit of the story which I have to say is troublesome:
No criminal matters can be considered by sharia arbitrators and no corporal punishment can be imposed. The tribunal can, however, adjudicate on cases of domestic violence – with a requirement to pass details to the police.
Arbitration is fine and perfectly legal in English law for civil matters.* But domestic violence is a criminal act. This adds confusion to some of the additional details being reported in The Times:
In the six cases of domestic violence, [Faiz-ul-Aqtab] Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.
In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.
In the words of one former judge, what these sorts of religious arbitration panels “mustn’t do – and this must never happen – is to stray into the field of criminal matters”. The arbitration ‘judges’ (?!) should not be making any pronouncements, whatsoever, on a matter which is with the police. If the reports are true, then it is wholly irresponsible of them to have done so.
What is probably needed is an expert’s analysis on the line between a criminal matter (related to domestic violence) and marital issues under consideration by a Muslim arbitration tribunal, such as those reported by The Times (and repeated elsewhere). The erosion of this line is not, and should not, be considered acceptable. Further, as one legal scholar has argued, “the state should seek to apply all human rights and anti-discrimination legislation rigorously to avoid structural discrimination in the operation of these minority courts of arbitration”. Anything less would be an abdication of responsibility by the state.
Now that these “courts” (tribunals) are fully under way in a more formal and open manner, we can probably expect more stories to begin emerging in the press.
*I am sympathetic to talk of ‘community pressure’, but it is wrong to arbitrarily remove legal avenues simply for people whose views one may not agree with. If you don’t like the law, campaign for a change.