Ayaan Hirsi Ali demands abolishment of UK’s Sharia Law courts: ‘It’s absolutely outrageous’

https://www.gbnews.com/news/sharia-law-court-uk-demand-ban

by Classy56

15 comments

  4. Absolutely insane we are tolerating the establishment of parallel legal systems in the UK – should just flat out be banned. Allowing Sharia courts to operate is a slippery slope to full-on radical Islamist separatism and with our integration challenges this is a risk should avoid

    Edit: to the commenters defending the Sharia courts – you do realise this is part of the same legal system which has the **death penalty** for homosexuality and blasphemy, allowing the more mundane parts of Sharia for civil courts is still disgraceful in a liberal democracy – we should not be _normalising_ and _legitimising_ a legal system which literally has the death penalty for loving someone of the same gender 🤦🏼

  5. There’s no mention in the article of Christian ecclesiastical courts, nor the Jewish Beth Din courts.

    Surely, if they’re truly interested in the supremacy of the UK’s judicial system, they’d be staunchly against these courts, too.

    GBeebies, the bastion of journalistic rigour, wouldn’t resort to dog-whistle shit stirring.. would they?

    Would they?

  7. When did we start saying “abolishment” instead of “abolition”?

  8. You would have to also ban Beth Din courts that Orthodox Jews use as well, if you were to go ahead with this.

  9. Banning these courts means banning religious services such as marriages and funerals. That’s what these courts do is conducting these types of services and issuing certificates that are legally non-binding and hold no actual legal status but gives it’s users some recognition of whatever services they are using under their respective God. Banning it is nonsensical.

    Who gives a shit if they follow certain traditions to deal with the dead or marriage as long as they follow and respect the laws on top of that. None of these courts are a replacement for actual law but you can’t force cohabiting couples to get civil marriages either.

  10. Personally I think we need to remove a lot of religious bollocks from a wide swathe of British society. Right up to a head of state who is also the supreme authority of a church.

    Get rid of the right to swear on the bible etc etc.

    I’m far more comfortable with that as a starting point and hard line in these discussions than what any particular religion might be doing.

  11. People here are comparing these “courts” to the CofE Ecclesiastical Court system.

    It should be noted that the Ecclesiastical Courts of the Church of England operate under the authority of the Crown, and a legal framework of various Acts of Parliament – most notably I think the *Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963* but stretching back to the eighteenth century.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_Jurisdiction_Measure_1963

    As such they are a formal part of our legal system rather than an unlicensed, unregulated parallel system such as is the case with Sharia courts or Jewish Beth Din courts (afaik).

    Something I just read that fascinated me is that the Ecclesiastical Courts operate under the “civil law” system whereas all our other courts operate under the English “common law” system. So now I imagine the trials being like US legal dramas as opposed to the less contentious English proceedings!

    EDIT: UPDATE as I’m learning a lot about this as I read up, there in fact ARE some UK appointed Sharia law bodies –

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Arbitration_Tribunal

    So these are Arbitration “courts” licensed under the Arbitration Act 1996. They resolve religious disputes but within the framework of English Law. The London Beth Din court falls under this Act.

    This seems like a good start but still lacking what I would consider rigorous oversight.

    EDIT2: as all the interesting legal discussion elsewhere has just been nuked – my thoughts on these courts depends on whether they are doing *mediation* (chairing a discussion that results in a mutually agreed outcome) or *arbitration* (offering a judgment which both parties are expected to abide by). If it’s the latter, and the court does NOT fall under the Arbitration Act 1996, then I would have an issue with that.

    If anyone is a lawyer in this field and wants to correct the above, please do as IANAL.

  12. So they’re just forms of civil arbitration that interpret the Quran.

    GB News are painting this as if Britain is on the verge of becoming an Islamic caliphate, which is absolutely not correct.

  13. Given their decisions are not binding and the parties involved can face no actual compulsion or penalty it’s difficult to see why they even exist. I happen to think they are pointless and stupid,Ike all religious activities.

  14. All those saying that “they’re not binding” ignore the fact that these will tend to operate in Muslim heavy areas where the legally may not be binding be de facto they are when “the community” around you heavily pressures you in to accepting their rulings

  15. There should only be 1 set of laws tolerated in the UK, those set by the elected democratic parliament. They need to pass a law with a prison sentence for those trying to create new laws outside of parliament. Consent is not relevant, as vulnerable and downtrodden women and children can be forced to accept these illegal laws by family members.

Comments are closed.