Sharia law could have UK role, says lord chief justice

[Blowfeld]

Part 1

· Phillips says Islamic law could benefit society
· He calls for system to govern marriages

* Patrick Wintour and Riazat Butt
* The Guardian,
* Friday July 4, 2008
* Article history

Britain's most senior judge reopened one of the most highly charged debates in Britain last night when he said he was willing to see sharia law operate in the country, so long as it did not conflict with the laws of England and Wales, or lead to the imposition of severe physical punishments.

The remarks by the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, in a speech to the London Muslim Council yesterday, had a conscious echo of the comments made by the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, in February who argued that sharia law could sometimes be used in Britain.

The archbishop, who suggested "sharia law was rooted in the sense of doing God's will in the ordinary things of law", was later forced to retract the statement.

Phillips insisted last night there was "widespread misunderstanding" of the nature of sharia law, and argued: "There is no reason why sharia principles, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution [with the understanding] ... that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of mediation would be drawn from the Laws of England and Wales."

He also suggested sharia principles should be applied to marriage arrangements.

Less controversially, Phillips backed the creation of specialist financial products and services which comply with sharia principles, something the UK Treasury has acknowledged since 2002.

The lord chief justice, in an address broadly designed to reassure the Muslim community that it was treated equally under British law, stressed that he was not countenancing "any notion of sharia courts operating in this country and seeking to impose such punishments".

He said: "There can be no question of such courts sitting in this country, or such sanctions being applied here.

"So far as the law is concerned, those who live in this country are governed by English and Welsh law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts."

In the most controversial section, Phillips said: " It was not very radical to advocate embracing sharia law in the context of family disputes, for example, and our system already goes a long way towards accommodating the archbishop's suggestion.

"It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law. Those who, in this country, are in dispute as to their respective rights are free to subject that dispute to the mediation of a chosen person, or to agree that the dispute shall be resolved by a chosen arbitrator or arbitrators.

"So a Muslim woman who divorced according to Sharia principles would be free to marry again, but not if she only went to a civil court.

"But as far as aspects of matrimonial law are concerned, there is a limited precedent for English law to recognise aspects of religious laws, although when it comes to divorce this can only be effected in accordance with the civil law of this country."

Although he admitted some Muslim countries interpret sharia law as calling for severe physical punishment, Phillips insisted there was a misconception that sharia law is "only about mandating sanctions, such as flogging, stoning the cutting off of hands or death for those that fail to comply with the law".

Usama Hasan, imam at Al-Tawhid Mosque, Leyton, and an adviser to the Islamic Sharia Council, the longest-established body of its kind in the UK, gave a cautious welcome to Phillips' speech.

He said: "[Phillips] is talking about provisions that are already out there for mediation and conflict resolution. Muslim couples would prefer to have their personal disputes to be settled by a sharia scholar because such a ruling would affect their status.

"Aspects of Jewish divorce law have long been part of English law and it seems reasonable for Muslims to have the same treatment, but it can't lead to inequality or a splintering of British society."

He added that it was difficult to have a sensible discussion about sharia law in the UK because the issue is "like a red rag" in the public's mind.

Backstory

Parts of the lord chief justice's speech read like a more coherent version of what the Archbishop of Canterbury said in February regarding Sharia law. Indeed, Phillips chaired Williams' address at the Royal Courts of Justice. Both agreed that it was possible for individuals to voluntarily conduct their lives obeying Sharia principles, without this being in conflict with rights that were guaranteed by English law. Williams said some aspects of Islamic personal law, relating to marriage for example, could benefit from being included in the legal system as a way to accommodate Muslims who did not defer to British law. At no point did he, or Phillips, endorse Islamic law's harshest penalties. Nor did they call for a parallel legal system for Muslims living in Britain.

Find this story at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/04/law.islam

[Blowfeld]

Part 2

UK Sharia "Vital And Inevitable"
By EURSOC Two
Published: 07 July, 2008

Another top British barrister has called for elements of Islamic Sharia law to be introduced into the UK.

Former chairman of Britain's Bar Council Stephen Hockman QC said last week that "It is vital and inevitable that sharia will become part of British law in some shape or form.

"Given the world situation and our own substantial Muslim population it is vital that we now look at ways to integrate Muslim culture into our own traditions... Otherwise we will find that there is a significant section of our society which is increasingly alienated, with very dangerous results."
His comments follow similar remarks from Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (England and Wales most senior judge) who said that Sharia could play a role in family and financial matters for Muslims. Lord Philips had discussed how elements of Sharia had been misrepresented and misunderstood by the press and public: "Severe physical punishments" he said, were unacceptable, but the Islamic system could be used for mediation or "alternative dispute resolution."

Earlier this year, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams claimed that the introduction of certain elements of Sharia law into British life were "unavoidable."

Hockman praised the Archbishop's stance, adding that the "virulent reaction" from politicians and the media (he could have added the public) showed "how necessary this work is" and said that people in authority should speak out in favour of Sharia.

Hockman also said that elements of Sharia should be written into English law, and said that a committee of barristers and politicians should be created to study how this might be achieved.

It is difficult to avoid the feeling that one has dozed off and awakened in some surreal parallel universe. The Archbishop of Canterbury - a leader of the established Church - calling for the introduction of the legal system of a rival religion? Two of the country's leading lawyers demanding that an alien legal system be written into English law - and one adding the dire threat of "very dangerous results" should we refuse to allow this?

(EURSOC might add that were he a Muslim, he'd be considerably pissed off that yet another important public figure has stressed his religion's peaceful and law-abiding nature - yet warned that if the Muslim's don't receive unprecedented special treatment, their reaction would prove very dangerous. Which other group is insulted in this way?)

Britain has accepted wave after wave of immigration over hundreds of years. British law, lacking a written constitution, has adapted and changed over this time, sometimes in response to clashes between newcomers and indigenous Brits. Race relations laws have been introduced to protect new communities, for example. But never before has it been demanded that Britain begin the process of unravelling centuries of legal process to fit the requirements of any one group - a group, it must be added, that is distinctly lacking in any public figures demanding such changes on its behalf.

EURSOC would stake that a majority of British Muslims would share the response of other Brits to Sharia: That is, if you fancy living under Sharia law, there are numerous countries where these laws are applied, and you are welcome to migrate there. Indeed, there is a wide selection of Sharia laws on offer throughout the world, as many Sharia courts are culturally driven rather than based on laws codified in the Koran. Want hand-chopping and beating of women? Or prefer a milder version of family mediation? There's a nation for every taste.

It's a distinction that Britain's finest legal minds clearly haven't considered. Which version of Sharia is encoded into British law? And how is it policed - will we need yet another layer of judges and barristers to sit between the Sharia courts and the British courts to ensure that the UK-approved version of Sharia is fairly applied?

Haven't judges and barristers made enough bloody money out of the Labour government?

And what happens when indigenous Brits or other migrants believe they are being discriminated against? Sharia divorces might favour males: So what's to stop a rich Saudi who wants to ditch his Missus demanding a Sharia divorce, rather than a face a British court which could see half his fortune handed over to the wife? A British banker in the same situation might eye his Saudi counterpart with some envy.

Or Sharia financing: Can Brits apply, and where will this leave British banks?

Or crime? Those informal Sharia courts which already exist in Britain are praised for their system of restitution, which brings criminals and their families together with victims and agrees on a community based response. If you have the misfortune to be burgled or mugged in Britain, the police don't want to know about it; yet state-backed Sharia hearings will provide some sort of justice for Muslim victims of crime. Could non-Muslim Brits claim that they're getting a worse deal than their neighbours?

It's a mind-boggling issue. British judges and barristers are often derided as out of touch with the people. Indeed, many pride themselves on this very fact, arguing that the law should be above the demands of the masses. Stephen Hockman QC, with his contemptuous disregard for public feelings on the matter of Sharia in Britain takes this further still. A response from the government and opposition would be welcome.

Find this story at http://eursoc.com/news/fullstory.php/ai ... able_.html