Well, will sharia law be binding or won’t it? There seems to be a lot of fuss being made about it. The BBC tells us today that the Justice Minister, Bridget Prentice, has said decisions made under this system – which favours men over women – can be rubber-stamped by British courts, i.e. proper courts.
But it’s not legally binding.
So what the hell are they playing at? Why bother even considering what a bunch of Islamists and their imams have decided on some ridiculous religious grounds if it’s got to be approved by a British court, anyway? Why waste judges’ time by presenting them with judgments from a sharia court? Why not let them just hear the two sides and make their own judgment – based on British law?
Critics have said before that they fear women will be treated worse, as we can see by an example on this blog post from September.
Why are we always kowtowing to religion? Why in particular to a religion that has such primitive views on the place of women in society?
The Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Herbert has said, “There can be no place for parallel legal systems in our country. It is right that agreements decided privately in family cases must be authorised by a judge applying English law if they are to have any legal effect.
“It is vital that in matrimonial disputes where a sharia council is involved, women’s rights are protected and judgments are non-binding.”
Quite. So why not just skip the kangaroo courts and get straight to the civil courts, where judgments can be handed out in a secular environment based on fairness for all? We're supposed to be progressing socially, not going back to the Dark Ages.