The Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill, proposed by Baroness Caroline Cox and supported by women’s rights groups and the National Secular Society, was reportedly drafted because of concerns that Muslim women are being discriminated against by sharia councils.
If passed, the bill would tackle discrimination by outlawing the sharia practice of weighing a woman’s testimony as only half that of a man’s and would levy a five-year jail sentence for anyone who claims sharia courts or councils have legal jurisdiction over family or criminal law.
The Guardian of the UK quoted Lady Cox, who is the chief executive of the Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust (HART), as saying: “Equality under the law is a core value of British justice. My bill seeks to preserve that standard.”
Currently, sharia tribunals in Britain can rule on cases involving financial and property issues, which—under the 1996 Arbitration Act—are enforceable by county courts or the high court. Under British law, sharia tribunals are only allowed to decide civil disputes.
But Cox said these sharia tribunals are increasingly overstepping their jurisdiction—ruling on family and criminal cases, including child custody and domestic violence cases.
Diana Nammi, of the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organization, said: “Women and children are very vulnerable members of the community and under Sharia Law they become invisible. Women and children are the most vulnerable in minority communities where religious tradition and culture has become the identity-taking precedence over the human rights and women’s rights that are protected under civil, UK law.”
If passed, the bill would also require public bodies to inform Muslim women that they have fewer legal rights if their marriage is not recognized by English law. Cox said she had found “considerable evidence” of women suffering from domestic violence or unequal access to divorce because of decisions made by sharia tribunals.
“We cannot continue to condone this situation. Many women say: ‘We came to this country to escape these practices only to find the situation is worse here,’” Cox told The Guardian.
But not everyone agrees. Aina Khan, a lawyer who advises on sharia law, told The Guardian: “It is good in parts. I would like to see best practice in sharia councils, like in the Beth Din [orthodox Jewish courts] model and I would like some legislation…. But there are some alarmist tones in the bill. Where she goes wrong is assuming that some sort of misogyny and discrimination goes on. Eighty percent of its users are women.”
Khurshid Drabu, adviser on constitutional affairs to the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “Bills of this kind don’t help anybody. They don’t appear to understand that we live in a free country where people can make free choices. Yet again, it appears to be a total misunderstanding of the concept that underpins these arbitration councils. Sharia councils operate under consent. If there is a woman who suffers as a result of a decision by one of these councils, a woman is free to go to the British courts.”
Britain isn’t the only country currently debating the role of Sharia in its society. About a dozen states across the US—from Florida and South Carolina to Alabama and Missouri—are currently debating similar sharia bills.
Many European countries that have state religions have long allowed Jews, Muslims and other non-Christians to have their own court systems for personal law matters. Similarly, many Islamic states allow Christians to have their own courts for family law matters. The US, with a secular legal system, has never recognized religious courts.
