One UK legal system? Think again

[Happy Face 29]

Clive Coleman

 

There is, in a world of uncertainties, at least one comforting and incontrovertible truth. There’s one law for all. isn’t there? Well, no there isn’t. In this country some minority and religious groups have their own courts dispensing justice in commercial cases, neighbour disputes and divorce.

 

This week there has been a furious debate about whether these courts complement the national law or threaten it. The debate has been stoked by the revelation that in southeast London there is an unofficial Somali court that deals with criminal matters.

 

Previously, tribunals such as the Jewish Beth Din have worked as courts of arbitration in civil matters. Though devout Jews regard it as a religious obligation to settle disputes at the Beth Din, it remains a voluntary jurisdiction and no one can be compelled to have their case heard there. English law accepts that people are entitled to devise their own arbitration tribunal administered by an agreed third party. The parties can agree the law under which their dispute is to be settled, including religious law. The judgment of the arbitrator is binding under domestic law, unless manifestly unreasonable.

 

The work of such courts has gone largely unnoticed and to the extent that it has been apparent, it is seen as an acceptable aspect of multiculturalism. Crime, however, is a different matter. One of the most serious cases to come before the Somali court involved the “trial” of a group of youths accused of stabbing a fellow Somali. Witnesses and families were brought together for a hearing in which the men admitted their guilt and their fathers and uncles agreed compensation for the victim.

 

The notion of a parallel criminal justice system for minority communities causes understandable concern. Why should one person receive a criminal conviction, perhaps a prison sentence, for committing a crime while another can pay compensation and avoid a criminal record? The Somali court is not a Sharia court; it operates according to traditional cultural principles. However, in the highly febrile current climate it is the role of Sharia in the debate about parallel courts and multiculturalism that has inflamed opinion.

 

In February an ICM survey of 500 British Muslims found 40 per cent in support of the introduction of Sharia in predominantly Muslim areas of Britain. Although the Muslim Council of Britain opposes the idea, there is already a network of Sharia councils in the UK. They are not constituted as traditional courts, but are seen as essential by Muslims seeking advice and religious sanction in matters such as divorce. Many Sharia councils already follow the Jewish model and have turned themselves into recognised courts of arbitration.

 

On this week’s Law in Action on Radio 4 Faizul Aqtab Siddiqi, a barrister and principal of Hijaz College Islamic University in Warwickshire, not only predicted a formal network of Muslim courts within a decade but imagined such courts dealing with crime: “I was speaking to a police officer who said we no longer have the bobby on the beat who will give somebody a slap on the wrist. So I think there is a case to be made under which the elders sit together and reprimand people, trying to get them to change.”

 

The thought of community policing by Sharia council was enough to send some elements of the press into hysteria, talking of secret Islamic courts operating in Britain and a law that allows beheadings, stonings and amputations. That response skews any serious debate. What is needed is a cool analysis of the effect that minority and religious courts might have on the rule of law and society.

 

We allow organisations such as schools to administer their own justice. Schools often deal with an assault by one pupil upon another, clearly a criminal act, without involving the police. We are largely content to let them do so, perhaps because they are tacitly licensed in that behaviour by the State.

 

But would minority courts be doing anything very different? Or would religious or cultural pressure, together with the rights and remedies espoused by minorities and religious groups, lead to an irrevocable fracturing of the justice system? Should these courts be restricted to civil matters, or is there a need to break down cultural barriers, which means that they should not even stray into that territory? In 1988 Malaysia amended its constitution to allow Sharia courts to stand on a par with civil courts. The dual system has led to conflict, especially in matters of divorce and custody. Any system of legal pluralism has to determine whether minority courts are equal in status to state courts, or ultimately subject to them.

 

Post-7/7 Britain was famously described as sleepwalking its way to segregation. And indeed it seems that multiculturalism may be going out of style among Britain’s politicians. However, the development of minority and religious courts could represent one of the most profound shifts towards multiculturalism so far. It is a change happening by stealth. But what makes it all the more paradoxical is that the mainstream legal system has sanctioned the creation of minority and religious courts and enforced their judgments.

 

The author is a barrister and presenter of Law In Action on Radio 4

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-2482324.html

[luckyluke 2]

We allow organisations such as schools to administer their own justice. Schools often deal with an assault by one pupil upon another, clearly a criminal act, without involving the police.

 

Ridiculous example, if the police need to be involved in schools than they will be.

 

I'm with the Australians, if you want to live under Sharia law than there are plenty of countries that you can move to.

[Tom 14021]

They should really just fuck off.

 

Proper 100 % fuck off.

 

 

Its not racist, when they show logic of any kind rather than this shite they're allright but i cant be arsed with this shite

[Tom 14021]

They should really just fuck off.

 

Proper 100 % fuck off.

 

 

Its not racist, when they show logic of any kind rather than this shite they're allright but i cant be arsed with this shite

[snakehips 0]

Without reading the article (I just can't be fucking arsed right now) I guess it's about other forms of 'justice' being carried out by various groups.

 

tbh, I am in a quandry here as on numerous occasions I would love to hand out my own punishment for some of the scumbags that infest this country. If I really feel like doing that, I can't be a hypocrite and demand others to stop their systems, can I??

[nufc4ever 0]

We are hoping to implement a hand-removal punishment for rule-breaking over on N-O based on these laws.

[luckyluke 2]

Without reading the article (I just can't be fucking arsed right now) I guess it's about other forms of 'justice' being carried out by various groups.

 

tbh, I am in a quandry here as on numerous occasions I would love to hand out my own punishment for some of the scumbags that infest this country.

 

So do I sometimes (women drivers in particular) but I realise that if everyone could do that then anarchy would reign.

 

So these courts can fuck off.

[Happy Face 29]

Without reading the article (I just can't be fucking arsed right now) I guess it's about other forms of 'justice' being carried out by various groups.

 

tbh, I am in a quandry here as on numerous occasions I would love to hand out my own punishment for some of the scumbags that infest this country.

 

So do I sometimes (women drivers in particular) but I realise that if everyone could do that then anarchy would reign.

 

So these courts can fuck off.

 

Both the prosecuters and defendent have to agree with it tbf.

 

It's only slightly more authoritative than Judge Judy.

[adios 717]

They should really just fuck off.

 

Proper 100 % fuck off.

 

 

Its not racist, when they show logic of any kind rather than this shite they're allright but i cant be arsed with this shite

 

Sounds it tbf.

 

Seems grand for civil cases, anything else is obviously bollocks.

[Renton 22625]

That's odd, I read this article last week in the Times, is the online edition that far behind.

 

The notion of seperate legal systems, even civil ones, is clearly ludicrous. FFS I am sick of the rise of religious fundamentalism and the decline of secularism under this government, enough's enough.

[adios 717]

That's odd, I read this article last week in the Times, is the online edition that far behind.

 

The notion of seperate legal systems, even civil ones, is clearly ludicrous. FFS I am sick of the rise of religious fundamentalism and the decline of secularism under this government, enough's enough.

 

Never heard anyone complaining about the Beth Din previously?

[Renton 22625]

That's odd, I read this article last week in the Times, is the online edition that far behind.

 

The notion of seperate legal systems, even civil ones, is clearly ludicrous. FFS I am sick of the rise of religious fundamentalism and the decline of secularism under this government, enough's enough.

 

Never heard anyone complaining about the Beth Din previously?

 

Never heard of it previously.

 

I'm complaining now.

[Happy Face 29]

That's odd, I read this article last week in the Times, is the online edition that far behind.

 

The notion of seperate legal systems, even civil ones, is clearly ludicrous. FFS I am sick of the rise of religious fundamentalism and the decline of secularism under this government, enough's enough.

 

It was in Saturday's Times, following a piece on radio 4 by the author which was expanded on the BBC website....

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/law_...ion/default.stm

[Renton 22625]

That's odd, I read this article last week in the Times, is the online edition that far behind.

 

The notion of seperate legal systems, even civil ones, is clearly ludicrous. FFS I am sick of the rise of religious fundamentalism and the decline of secularism under this government, enough's enough.

 

It was in Saturday's Times, following a piece on radio 4 by the author which was expanded on the BBC website....

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/law_...ion/default.stm

 

Sure I read it last Monday, maybe it was just a similar article.

[Tom 14021]

They should really just fuck off.

 

Proper 100 % fuck off.

 

 

Its not racist, when they show logic of any kind rather than this shite they're allright but i cant be arsed with this shite

 

Sounds it tbf.

 

Seems grand for civil cases, anything else is obviously bollocks.

 

 

Its not like..

 

 

You're not allowed to say a fucking thing these days

 

PC is stopping people from actually thinking these days , Orwell style.

 

Just like i told my friend i dont like to hear a woman sing....

 

How the fuck is not liking a paticular sound sexist?

 

[adios 717]

Its not like..

 

 

You're not allowed to say a fucking thing these days

 

PC is stopping people from actually thinking these days , Orwell style.

 

Just like i told my friend i dont like to hear a woman sing....

 

How the fuck is not liking a paticular sound sexist?

 

 

I agree, the PC shite really gets in the way of intelligent debate, the only thing worse is people not understanding what it is, and taking it completely out of context. When you say they should really all fuck off, like they're some homogonous group, that sounds racist, might not be, but it sounds it.

 

Not liking the sound of a woman's voice is not sexist, fucking obviously, not sure what it's got to do with what we're talking about, though I'm glad you've found a bigger mong than yourself to argue with.

[Tom 14021]

Its not like..

 

 

You're not allowed to say a fucking thing these days

 

PC is stopping people from actually thinking these days , Orwell style.

 

Just like i told my friend i dont like to hear a woman sing....

 

How the fuck is not liking a paticular sound sexist?

 

 

I agree, the PC shite really gets in the way of intelligent debate, the only thing worse is people not understanding what it is, and taking it completely out of context. When you say they should really all fuck off, like they're some homogonous group, that sounds racist, might not be, but it sounds it.

 

Not liking the sound of a woman's voice is not sexist, fucking obviously, not sure what it's got to do with what we're talking about, though I'm glad you've found a bigger mong than yourself to argue with.

 

 

Lol yeh man

 

he gets proper upset

 

same with all that kind of stuff though...

[TheInspiration 1]

That's odd, I read this article last week in the Times, is the online edition that far behind.

 

The notion of seperate legal systems, even civil ones, is clearly ludicrous. FFS I am sick of the rise of religious fundamentalism and the decline of secularism under this government, enough's enough.

Without disagreeing with your obvious opinion on the thread topic, I'm sick of hypocrisy from some non-religious people. Nobody seemed to complain a few weeks ago when people tried to get Christian Unions in universities banned. That's a ridiculous idea if ever I saw one. Edited December 4, 2006 by TheInspiration

[luckyluke 2]

That is a ridiculous idea, but I don't see how being opposed to a religous court and a religous society is double standards.

[adios 717]

Without disagreeing with your obvious opinion on the thread topic, I'm sick of hypocrisy from some non-religious people. Nobody seemed to complain a few weeks ago when people tried to get Christian Unions in universities banned. That's a ridiculous idea if ever I saw one.

Would you like some cuddly man-love?

[Renton 22625]

That's odd, I read this article last week in the Times, is the online edition that far behind.

 

The notion of seperate legal systems, even civil ones, is clearly ludicrous. FFS I am sick of the rise of religious fundamentalism and the decline of secularism under this government, enough's enough.

Without disagreeing with your obvious opinion on the thread topic, I'm sick of hypocrisy from some non-religious people. Nobody seemed to complain a few weeks ago when people tried to get Christian Unions in universities banned. That's a ridiculous idea if ever I saw one.

 

Actually, the case was a bit more complicated than that, but yes, I agree, it was ridiculous - that's students for you. Can't see how me being against "religious courts" makes me a hypocrite though.

[TheInspiration 1]

I'm not really upset. Just used the term "sick" as Renton did, plus I get enough cuddly man-love every day against my will, but thanks all the same.

 

And I wasn't saying it was you who was hypocritical anyway Renton.

[adios 717]

I'm not really upset. Just used the term "sick" as Renton did, plus I get enough cuddly man-love every day against my will, but thanks all the same.

 

And I wasn't saying it was you who was hypocritical anyway Renton.

 

Comes with the territory tbh.