You are in:
- Archives » 2008 » July 2008
UK Sharia "Vital And Inevitable"
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.
