Sharia Law in the UK? Whatever next?

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".

Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

I agree with Dr Williams - up to a point.

Consenting adults should be able to access more culturally appropriate provisions for the management of marital disputes, property settlements, custody arrangements and the like if they wish to do so.

These permissions should not become part of English, law but something where decisions made by the parties, when entered into by consenting adults, are recognised by English law.

Consenting adults moreover, where both parties have been afforded the opportunity to provide informed consent.

Dr Rowan goes on to say:

Orthodox Jewish courts already operated, and that the law accommodated the anti-abortion views of some Christians.

"The whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways the law of the land pays respect to custom and community, that's already there," he said.

People may legally devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.

Muslim Sharia courts and the Jewish Beth Din which already exist in the UK come into this category.

The country's main Beth Din at Finchley in north London oversees a wide range of cases including divorce settlements, contractual rows between traders and tenancy disputes.

I think that the phrase "as long as both sides agree to the process' is one key to this proposition, together with two other propositions (unstated):

1. that both parties are well enough informed to be able to make an informed choice and
   
2. that the jurisdiction of the religious court is clearly and unambiguously delineated.
   

In essence this would mean that the laws of the land always take precedence over all other forms of justice that exist in the community. However, in recognition of the sensitivities and rights of people from other cultures:

1. if both the parties to a potential dispute agree to abide by another form of judicial process and
   
2. they are both provided with expert advice and information that enables them to make an informed choice and
3. the jurisdiction of the courts are limited to certain agreed matters

then the people, the other religious groups and the government and the courts of the country should support them.

Some of my readers in Australia will obviously think I have suddenly lost my senses and become demented!

The first reaction I expect will be something like:

"It's not coming here, whatever the Archbishop is saying!

They can do what they like in the UK!

This is Australia, mate, if all these people want to come here then they can bloody well accept that there is ONE LAW for all in this country and if they don't like it, they can bugger off and go back to where they came from."

This expected reaction is what has in essence already been said by representatives from both sides of politics in this country. Put more politely - of course!

Yet I wonder.

People who have chosen to go anywhere from other lands and cultures, usually because they are refugees, are none the less expected to have made an informed choice about going to that country.

Part of that informed choice is to recognise that the culture is different, the mainstream religion is different and the way that the laws work where the end up, is different.

So why hold out an opportunity to people to have access to some other form of justice even if it is only for a small range of matters?

I guess my answer to that is that if this suggestion had been made in Australia then I would have expected Australians to react differently than they have to date, as Australia appears to be, for the most part at least, a tolerant society and one that positively welcomes differences.

It is a country in which people from well over a hundred different nationalities, many with different cultures and religions have come and settled.

They have all made a wonderful contribution to the development of this country and added to the Australia we now have, from their own unique cultures and belief systems.

So if the issue had been raised here, then perhaps it's past time to ensure that we, the Australians who live here and benefit from these contributions recognise that it's OK to permit others if they choose to do so, to remain close to their religious and cultural heritage and have at least some aspects of their lives governed by the laws of behaviour that have governed their lives in the past.

At all times, the proviso that parts of these non Australian justice systems can come into play is if and only if, both the parties to the dispute agree to it.

If not then the matter cannot be brought to any religious court.

Furthermore, in most jurisdictions where such provisions already apply, the range of disputes that are permitted to come before an alternate justice system are usually limited to some civil matters and do not and cannot be used in cases of criminal justice or indeed for any other decision making outside those very limited situations.

The establishment of any religious court, MUST also be accompanied by a clear definition of the extent of its jurisdiction and have some provision within the system that ensures that before either party is permitted to make a choice to use a religious court system, both parties are provided with information and advice about the system and its provisions.

Then each of the parties needs to be able to get advice about what making a choice like this means for them.

I raise the issue of informed consent simply because another argument that is likely from those whose visceral reactions to such a proposal are almost guaranteed, is that at least one of the parties (my guess is that in most of the arguments women will feature heavily as the party in question) will not have the opportunity to make a free choice or to exercise informed consent.

The argument is likely to run that in some cultures women are discouraged, if not prevented from having access to education. If women arrive from a country where this is common place, into the UK, (or anywhere else for that matter) then how will they know their rights and what opportunity will there really be for them to make an informed choice about whether or not to agree to participate?

My obvious suggestion to remedy such questions is that any legal provision that permits Sharia or other religious courts to function, needs to ensure that both parties are not only able to obtain, but are provided with expert advice and information as a matter of course, before they are permitted to make any choices.

This question has not come to Australia, yet, but I suspect it will.

I wonder what the reaction will be in the UK

I suspect it will be both as hostile as it has been in Australia and in the case of a similar attempt in Ontario in Canada where: (as reported by BBC news)

A report by Ontario's former attorney general Marion Boyd had recommended the use of Islamic law to settle issues such as divorce and child custody.

Premier Dalton McGuinty ruled against the move, saying there should be "one law for all Ontarians".

Protests were held against the Sharia law proposal in major Canadian cities, as well as in Paris, London and Vienna. Critics said allowing Islamic tribunals could lead to discrimination against women."