h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"I can't see how Scottish Police could legally ignore a case of Domestic Abuse just because the parties are Muslim."

I can't either. Presumably they couldn't.

If I understand correctly, in England and Wales the police can only pursue a case if there is a complaint/cooperation from the victim, but in Scotland the police can proceed without a complaint. If McPlod were aware of a case of domestic violence and took action, this would presumably take precedence over any decisions taken by a voluntary binding arbitration panel.

Thing is, let's seperate the letter of the law from real life. It used to be that the Police were very reluctant to get involved in domestic abuse, even when the woman made a complaint. My wife was abused by her first husband and she tells me that she would phone the police, answer the door bloodied and bruised and all the police would do was say "You'd be better leaving him love". It was precisely because this kind of thing was happening, that the Police were not intervening when they could have, that discretionary powers were removed from the Police in Scotland.

If there is now to be confusion introduced into who does and doesn't have jurisdiction, is this not going to inevitably lead to women suffering continued abuse?

And in England, there's little doubt that the Police will happily wash their hands of any domestic abuse involving Muslims, particularly because of cultural sensitivities.

This is a craven decision by the authorities. Because Sharia does not guarantee equality of treatment between the genders, it fails to meet the first hurdle of British common law. Given the documented cases of honour killings, forced marriages and abductions, is there not reasonable cause to doubt that every Muslim woman will enter arbitration freely and willingly?

Oh get over yourself SWL. Why not get with reality and quit your fantasy that the law and those who administer and enforce it do so with anything more than a grudging attitude to equality. For most its a job to which they bring their own set of prejudices, which are much the same as the general public have.

The policearemostly menand dont "get" what a woman goes through in terms of domestic violence. The blurring or jurisdictions is nothing compared to the attitude that men have of women being stupid doormats for putting up with beatings.

You might not think that and I dont but its a common attitude amongst men.

I just wonder why you insist on blurring the line between what is in England as it is in Scotland a binding rule to act over domestic abuse with rules about voluntary Sharia abbitration?

Everyone is aware you have an knee jerk response to anything Muslim tinged or influenced and in principle Im with you I think we should not be pandering to any religious notions but its a plural democracy and as part of that we have to let people deal with their business how they see fit.

<>

And that's precisely my point That's *exactly* why discretionary powers were removed from the Police in Scotland. That England is behind the times and allows such an institutional bias to continue is one thing, but to further exacerbate the situation by allowing a mysogynistic religion dominion in such affairs beggars belief.

And if we accept that the British legal system is unconsciously sexist & chauvinist, what does it say for our society that we are allowing a seperate legal system to be established that is openly sexist & chauvinist?

"If there is now to be confusion introduced into who does and doesn't have jurisdiction, is this not going to inevitably lead to women suffering continued abuse?"

I don't think there is any confusion. Criminal law trumps civil law, and if Scottish law allows the prosecution of violent partners without the cooperation of a victim, this trumps any agreements made at a Sharia arbitration panel. It seems quite clear to me.

I do share concerns about the possibilities for coercion with this system, but I think the same possibilities exist in Jewish arbitration panels, and among any close-knit community group, with or without one of these binding arbitration panels.

To be honest, I'd rather we didn't have these Sharia panels, but for reasons I explained in post 13, I don't see how they can consistently banned. SWL, do you think that removing the right for anyone to enter into a process of binding arbitration for civil cases is a price worth paying not to have Sharia panels?

I think if we're not careful, the institutional desire to please everybody is going to lead us into apartheid.

The change in the law in Scotland regarding domestic abuse is having a positive impact. If Sharia becomes established in England, will it not make following Scotland's example more difficult?

"in England, there's little doubt that the Police will happily wash their hands of any domestic abuse involving Muslims, particularly because of cultural sensitivities.

Little doubt based on what evidence

The police are complled to follow up domestic violence accusations and will make arrests as amatter of routine. Prosecution is not in their hands and hasnt been for a good long time.

Whether Muslim or not does not make one jot of difference to the rules just because there is a brazen attitude of dominance over women for men within Islam that doesnot men who arent Muslim are some how hell bent on equality and womens rights.

This document explains how cases are progressed in circumstances where victims are pressured not to press charges http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/DomesticViolencePolicy.pdf

Thanks for that document

The difference between Scots & English practices are clear -

"We also acknowledge that some victims may not wish the
criminal route to be engaged at all, preferring to
make use of civil remedies or other safety and
support mechanisms."

1.15 We know that domestic violence is likely to become
more frequent and more serious the longer it
continues and can result in death. Because of this,
we will sometimes take proceedings even if a victim
asks us not to do so.

Note the "sometimes"

So yes, it looks like there is no barrier at all to Sharia ruling on criminal matters like domestic abuse in England.

Is this what multiculturalism is all about then? Lots of seperate groups of people living under their own laws, their own schools, their own languages?

Incidentally, here's the Scottish version -
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/DomesticViolencePolicy.pdf

4. In incidents where the victim is making no complaint, but there is otherwise
sufficient evidence available, the police will take appropriate action, arrest
the offender and report the circumstances forthwith to the Procurator Fiscal
for consideration of prosecution.

So no automatic prosecution then in either England or Scotland and the other agencies mentioned could mean anything from family support charities, relationship support, social services or religious groups.

If people choose another course the law is not obliged to see their decisions as a be all and end all. Sharia Law is just another addition to the ways of attempting to resolve a number of issues open to people.

People can agree what they like but any agreement that is outside of the law can be overturned by the courts.

I agree with most of your post, but are you misreading the Scottish document?

"12. If there is sufficient evidence in domestic abuse cases involving violence
against the victim, there is a presumption in favour of prosecution and,
where the decision is to prosecute, such cases will proceed in the Sheriff or
High Court."

In Scotland, no matter what the victim says, if there is evidence then the State will *always* prosecute. There is absolutely no wriggle room for arbitration parties.

What abitration wriggle room.

Victims often withdraw their complaint or refuse to testify in court. The testimony of victims is often a major element of the evidence and cases in either country are shaky witout it.

As the document saysin England "normally" the only cases where statements can be read out as evidence inplaceoftestimony is where the alleged victimcant be found.

Maybe Scottish courts have different rules regarding this but I fail to see where Islamic or other arbitration would superceed or even interfere with the current system.

Rather than just stating Islam is a cover for evil and is going to ruin our country shortly before it makes the sky fall in try telling me how Sharia abitration makes things any worse for victims of domestic abuse than they already are.

Before this came up, I had no idea that the English legal system still operated the way it did regarding domestic abuse. I had presumed what happened in Scotland also happened down south. I was wrong.

So Sharia doesn't make things worse for English women in domestic violence cases. They're just as ed as they were before.

It does make things worse for civil matters like inheritance though. As the article states, Muslim women receive half the amount they would normally receive under English law.

Do you think Sharia is fair and equitable to all members of society?

As I understand it, the system will be that English Law Courts will uphold Sharia decisions if they are deemed "reasonable". Quite probably the majority of cases will pass this test, but would the inheritance case in the article pass?

It's not a matter of conjecture that Islam treats women as being less than men, it's a matter of record. Witness the mosques that ban women, look at the Sharia adultery laws which are biased in favour of men. Is standing by and watching women of whatever culture being denied equal rights morally the right thing to do?

Many people here profess an earnest desire to work towards a fairer and more equitable society. Where does legitimising a repressive legal structure fit into that?

A 'presumption in favour of prosecution' means just what it says. It does not mean that the state will *always* prosecute where there is evidence, it means that the default position is to prosecute.

There doesn't seem to be a huge amount of difference between the Scottish and English positions - although the Scottish 'presumption in favour of prosecution' is stronger (and, to my mind, preferable) to the English 'sometimes'.

I don't understand why anything in these Sharia arbitration panels would affect the ability of the law to deal with domestic violence cases. All these panels hand down is binding arbitration, which is only binding (a) if all those involve consent at the start of the process (b) in civil cases, not criminal cases and (c) if not trumped by other laws of the land, including criminal law.

Inheritance is a difficult one. As I've said before, if it was up to me I'd get rid of inherited wealth completely, but at the moment there's no test of reasonableness or fairness in terms of how I make my will, provided that I am of sound mind and (I think) provide for dependants. I could cut out adult impoverished relatives to whom I ought to owe a debt of gratitude, and there's nothing the state can do about it. It's difficult to comment about the Sharia arbitration decisions on inheritance without knowing the background, but if the decision to divide the money on the basis of Sharia law was made because the deceased agreed with Sharia law, it's very hard to argue against the decision. It's obviously inconsistent to demand equal division of inheritance in some cases and not others. Most of those who support the principle of inherited wealth typically do so on the grounds that people can do what they like with their money.

Joshua Rozenberg makes a similar point in:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/lawreports/joshuarozenberg/2957692/What-can-sharia-courts-do-in-Britain.html

Let's not forget the inbuilt sexism (along with other unfairnesses) in our own system of inheritance, or at least that of our Royal family and aristocracy where the first born son inherits the title regardless of merit or desert. It's not really a pressing issue at the moment, but it might be if William's first child is a girl.

Consistency is key here - I don't see how we can ban Sharia 'courts' without banning similar Jewish 'courts', and all persons and bodies that offer binding arbitration in civil cases. And I don't see how we can interfere in inheritance issues where we perceive unfairness involving Muslims without interfering similarly in everyone's inheritance affairs.

SWL, can you see a way out of the consistency problems?

muslim law for muslims

let them try and behead all the muslim drug dealers it will save a fortune in prison budgets and the re-offending rate is reduced to zero

win win

My information on the situation in Scotland comes from a woman who is a manager for a criminal justice group in Glasgow dealing with women's issues. She deals with the victims of domestic abuse and the court system on a daily basis. The change in emphasis in Scotland has led to the vast majority of cases where there is sufficient evidence leading to a prosecution. The very few exceptions come where the accused has a history of mental instability or substance abuse, in which case they may be ordered to attend clinics and counselling. I am told that groups like Women's Aid and Shelter Scotland are extremely concerned about the Sharia reports and are seeking meetings with Govt ministers about it. In order for the law to deal with domestic abuse, cases have to be reported by the Police. In Scotland the Police are obliged to report, in England there appears to be no such obligation. In which case it is only logical to assume that a number of domestic abuse cases result in outcomes which may not match entirely those that the courts would have handed down.

Consent is a big issue of course. We have to consider the reported action of what we would call extremists in Muslim society, even if they represent a tiny minority. Ch4 filmed a preacher instructing his congregation to beat girls if they did not dress appropriately. There have been a number of extreme cases of honour killings. There are documented cases of forced marriages. Something like 65% of Muslim women are economically inactive. Again Ch4 filmed religious leaders instructing women that they could not work beside men and that their proper role was at home. The majority of Muslim women do of course integrate with British society, but there is evidence that some live closed lives within their distinct communities. Sharia proscribes that a woman must be in the charge of a man at all times - be that her father or her husband. In such a climate, can we assume that women always give their consent willingly and with an understanding of the alternatives available under British law?

Inheritance is a big can of worms I agree, but the very fact that parties seek arbitration is a recognition that the deceased has not left clear instructions or that interested parties dispute these instructions. I agree the Royal Family is an oddity, but hardly one representative of the British legal system.

No, I don't see a solution to the consistency issue. Especially as introducing Sharia is essentially introducing further inconsistency to the system. But a system where justice varies according to belief and culture is essentially not a fair one. This has only come about as a direct result of the unprecedented rate of immigration in recent years. Whilst communities were relatively small and stable, as with Jews, I think society could withstand a degree of flexibility. But allowing Sharia means there can be no logical objection to Hindu courts, Sikh courts, Chinese courts, Polish courts etc etc ad infinitum.

I believe we should all be equal under the law. In reality that doesn't happen, but at least we begin with that starting point. When equality is determined by ethnicity or religion we are looking at a fracturing of society.

I agree with SWL on this one. May it never happen again .

I don't think this sort of segmentation into little in-groups has to be the inevitable outcome of immigration, as evidenced by France and the USA.

SWL: >>Before this came up, I had no idea that the English legal system still operated the way it did regarding domestic abuse. I had presumed what happened in Scotland also happened down south. I was wrong.<<

Happens with kids as well - the police are *very* reluctant to get involved when a child is being abused. For me, one of my teachers had to take me into a police station, battered and bruised, and threaten the officer who saw us that if he didn't do anything, and anything further happened to me, he see him fired, before they'd do anything.

That's one of the reasons the big child abuse stories have made the news lately all took place in England or Wales, and not Scotland.



I think that anything that increases the social and cultural divide is an inherently bad thing - people should abide by the same rules as everyone else, regardless of their culture. The laws should provide a flat building space for everyone, and people are free to place whatever edifice they choose on top of that.

What SWL said about it becoming like a cultural apartheid doesn't seem far wrong to me - living in Bradford this past year has really changed my stance on the issue. Here the two different cultures essentially live separate lives; they live in separate areas, they attend seperate schools from primary upwards (most schools around here are 90%+ one ethnicity), social and youth services are essentially segregated, the university where I work is almost entirely local students of Asian descent and white students have moved in. Almost no white Bradfordian kids attend the university.

This is a problem because there is suspicion and paranoia on both sides, there is a palpable dislike all over the city and very few neutral spaces. There's a monumental arrogance on both sides, with people determined to others off because they're in the right and why shouldn't they do what they like? And Bob help you if you ever decide to infringe on their "rights". Even with educated professionals, who you'd expect to know better, you only have to scratch the surface to sometimes discover some pretty uneducated views. It's depressing for a neutral observer like myself, because there doesn't seem to be an answer, at least not one any self-respecting, yoghurt-weaving liberal like myself would like to give too much thought.

But the bottom line is, a solution is going to have to be forced upon an unwilling population. Bradford is a very poor city, it's education system is weak (I say this as someone who works with it everyday) and it there's a real brain drain of the successful kids away to Leeds, Manchester and beyond. For a lot of these folks all they have is a tribal loyalty to their group and a knowledge of superiority over others. Taking that away from them isn't going to be easy, but if things are to improve it needs to be done. The French have less of a problem with this, and they have the biggest Muslim population in Europe.

I think I get what you mean about cultural apartheid but lets not get it confused witht eh very different thing that apartheid actually is.

Apartheid was a set of rules imposed by a ruling group against another group.

What we are seeing is informal voluntary segregation. The people who started it and do most toperpetuateit are men, white men. Remember black and asian communities didnt have the resources or power to simply "take over" neighbourhoods it was "white flight" that created what we might call ghettos in out inner cities.

If you want people to change their ways and its clear that you want Muslims to shoutinmg at them isnt going to do the trick. We are back tot he fableof the sun and the sind trying to get the man's hat and coat off. The sun did a better job by creating an atmosphere where he wanted to get rid of his coat while the wind only made him cling onto it more dearly by trying to rip it away.

The established white society has a choice try to use force and draconian laws. Its never worked at supressing anything int he long term in any place or making its own society so great that Muslims see no better way to live that they ditch their own culture and the religion tied up with it.

This can work butit takes a different approach to the one most white people take.

one love

Hi Blicky,

Whilst I agree with your sentiment I have to say that HonestIago is right.

I have been trying to illustrate this point in many past posts , only to be accused of being at best a 'passive racist'

Comparing your own cultural experiences with the situation in Bradford (and other northern ex-mill towns)doesn't stand up. Whatever the causes, the situation he describes pertains and it isn't improving thanks to those who propound multi-culturalism.

Adding yet more layers of it don't help either. But perhaps you have to visit these cities to see the degree of entrenchmant.

Novo