Sikh court to be stablished in London- The Guardian article

[MushMonster]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/31/the-world-is-getting-its-first-sikh-court-in-london-but-this-is-why-we-need-to-pay-close-attention-to-it

I have just read this article and cannot quite get my head around this.
How can any faith set their own court within UK?
The article states the court can issue legally binding rulings. How is that possible if it is not a UK law court? Is that right?
Is this going to be similar to an ecclesiastical court of today? So they keep records of religious marriages, ceremonies and mediate in family matters, like divorce, but they have NIL legal value?
I am rather confused by this...

Surely it's just for Sikhs and Sikh issues.

I'm Jewish and we have Batei Din courts for Halachic law. But they're just for us. They have no legal jurisdiction in British law. I think there are similar Sharia courts for Muslims?

I don't think they should be allowed for the reasons given in the article- women will pay the price.

I just had a look to it in Youtube and it was in India's news and all!
They will start with mediation, but if there is no agreement, it will go to the judge. Whatever the judge rules will be legally binding. Both parties would have to have agreed to it beforehand. If they spot serious safeguarding issues, they are meant to refer to UK law court.
I am happy for any faith to have family support groups, registers with marriage/ births and so on. And for them to mediate in conflict, from a religious and support point of view. I think most religions have those indeed.
But UK is a secular country with its well stablished and written laws. I cannot get my head around how these courts are allowed to get any legally binding powers. I disagree with that. Deeply.
And it opens a path to so many people to be abused and silenced on this sidepath of "justice".
UK should have one law for all citizens.

@PurpleChrayn I have quickly googled and I believe the Batei Din are not legally binding.
I am catholic and the Catholic Church has their own birth, sacraments, marriage, death registers. But they are not legally binding. So, you have to get married within the country's law, get the certificate, then the priest will marry you both and place it in their register with the religious blessing and certificate. Same for borths.
If you want to divorce, you can dissolve your legal marriage within the secular law. But Catholicism does not recognise divorce, so you cannot break your religious marriage, at least you take it to the ecclesiastic court, which will gather evidence and assess if your case fits the very few exceptions to the rule.
So, there is a "court" based on religion, but it is not legally binding.
They offer advice and support for couples. Courses for people about to be married...
But they cannot decide on the childcare division, assets division, maintenance payments, fines, community service or any other legal issue from family or dispute matters, which this court sounds like will have.

I hear your concerns but UK has never had one application of law for all citizens unless they understand the law and how it works, and are tenacious enough to get it heard high enough. (or can afford someone who can) Then actual equality takes place.
Part of why 'minority' groups turn to Batei Din, Sharia, and Kriss, amongst others, because issues of intersectionality leave us with often the judgement of men and it just becomes a question of which men.
The commonality is women often don't fare equally automatically under any system. Perhaps we should see the opportunity to lobby for female courts...

Do I understand this correctly, in that it’s like a school having its own rules and regulations . Ie. Must wear school uniform, but the (UK) law of the land supersedes all of these rules?

It's because it is arbitration, and arbitration is a binding process. They aren't taking their case to 'court' in the way we'd think about it. They're taking it to an expert that will make a decision for them, but it's for civil/family issues (between the two parties) rather than criminal (where the crown brings the prosecution and would remain free to do so if it had the evidence of a crime). So rather than going in front of a judge to determine what happens in respect of residency of children, it would be in front of the arbitrator.

You don't need to be legally trained to be an arbitrator although a lot are - the reason arbitration is used (usually in the context of business) is because you want the judgement of someone that is an expert in the particular area (although in this case, it would be Sikh laws) or a retired legal professional with experience in the area possibly supported by an expert, and therefore understands the nuances of the practical issues, rather than a legal expert that may not understand those nuances.

It's a consensual process, so both parties would need to agree with it (but that doesn't mean much when one side can be pressured into it). Effectively, people would actively waive their right to pursue litigation in favour of a binding decision being made by someone that is an expert in their culture. If you went to 'Sikh court' over residency, and didn't like the decision, you wouldn't then be able to pursue litigation in the normal way simply because you didn't like the answer. That binding award is what you signed up for when you agreed to arbitrate.

Agree that this is worrying and women will suffer.

Established.

For a secular country, this is like a step back in time to the so called Dark Ages.
Europe's history is plagued with horrible stories and abuse caused by this type of religious legally binding courts paired with a King/ Queen powers. They killed people, tortured them, oppressed them...
After centuries fighting to separate the State from religion, why this? UK has its law, yes surely we need to address the failures of the system, but why giving binding powers to a religious court that operates under a different law? And how have they managed to do this? Surely it must be in the Constitution itself, the separation of State and religion.

Nah. Time to protest.

After centuries fighting to separate the State from religion, why this

Its called late stage capitalism and the decay of the west. Its where you erode any social progress made over the centuries so that everybody feels included.

We never have been and still aren't a secular country.
We also have an uncodified constitution that makes no real mention of issues of religion (the US one does and is codified).
There are Church of England Bishops sitting in the House of Lords as part of the legislative therefore making laws.

I do also oppose the presence of bishops or lords in the House of Lords. At least, if it based on just their title. It is meant to be based on their high knowledge of the Constitution and Law of the country.
The bishops are meant to be experts in Theology not law, so they should not be there anyway.
The Constitution is not written, but it should. And the Law is written, so why should we have any other Law applied in any legally binding court within UK? This law does not pass through Parliament and the House of Lords. We have no clue of what is about and no influence over it, and it is based on a religion.

Completely agree OP. Religion should have no place in law in the UK. Religion is by and large devised and managed by men with control of women at it’s heart.

The law is not all written. We have a Common Law system, so I presume this is part of the Common Law. This is binding arbitration, which we have for all sorts of things.
The reason we cannot be completely secular in this country is because we have a State Religion, with the Monarch as Head of Church and State. You could argue that we should not have a state religion (or a Monarchy) and we should be completely secular. If you have a system of binding arbitration, then there is always a risk that religious people will use binding arbitration to deal with their own religious rules. Binding arbitration is a good thing, as it avoids the court system. and is meant to be more collaborative. The problem is when a system that is legally allowed gets used by religious groups to coerce their followers. Im not sure how you can change this though without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

This.

All these courts shouldn’t exist (Jewish, Islamic, Sikh).

Although, technically, they are additions to UK courts, not replacements, in tightly bound religious communities, there is tremendous pressure to use the ‘local’ court.

I read an article about Hasidic Jews in North London preferring their own justice in cases of serious crimes like rape and child abuse. Needless to say the remedies were mostly financial and paltry compared to what would happen in a proper court.

If people want to live in the UK, they need to embrace our secular justice system. Religion and justice shouldn’t ever be mixed.

This.

As a woman I have been concerned for a long time that this would happen. This is the thin end of the wedge and there is the potential for most people to only wake up once it is embedded in our culture.

Opposing it is seen as religious discrimination rather than supporting women’s right.

I did not know they ever handle cases like rape and child abuse! 😨😱😱😱
This is what happened with the Catholic church child abusers. The Church court never passed the information to the proper legal system and the perpetrators went unpunished and abused children again, ruining so many lives.
And we may end up with a repeat, because who is checking what these courts are doing? And wether the people there have really agreed to it? Because I grant you the children of the cases mentioned above did not, yet that is what they got.
This has made me rather sad since I read it on Friday. It is plain wrong.

The problem with religious courts is that they prioritise the integrity of the marriage over the circumstances of the individual’s within it. Just means that women have to put up with shitty behaviour. On average men behave worse than women in marriages so it primarily puts women at a disadvantage.

The example given in the article is concerning, it points to a woman cutting her sons hair without the father’s consent. I would be very concerned if a parent was expected to enforce religious duties/observations on behalf of the other parent. Frankly though I very much doubt thats the kind of woman who would consent to arbitration from a religious court. I could see control through children as a serious problem, insisting that they are raised at a particular level of observance etc. I could also see non religious women from religious families being pressurised into using courts like this.

Sikhism isn’t like the abrahamic religions in regards to female equality at all but there is a lot of scope to pressurise women into positions that disadvantage them. Sikhism sees the ideal marriage as being a state of oneness with spouses having equal right to physical and spiritual support to grow. The problem is women generally are not as flawed as men, a lot of the support ends up going one way. The question is who will have to compromise or bite their tongue. I think we know the answer to that

I think it’s extremely regressive to have any religious courts tbh, they should all be banned. They add nothing that the legal system can’t cover more effectively and equitably. I’m immensely suspicious of two tier systems.

A Catholic marriage is legally recognised in the UK though. There is no separate civil ceremony.

It is not a court. It is an arbitration and despute resolution service. Any group, religious or otherwise, can set one up. The thing is - and what the somewhat over-hyped Guardian article ignores - is that they do not, and cannot, over-ride the Law and the established Courts.

If all parties are happy to accept their decision- fine. If not, they can still go to law.

That is because the wording of the civil ceremony is incorporated into the Catholic rite. Look at the wording and you will see one section has a footnote saying "These words must be said for the marriage to be legally binding." It's the bit about being legally free to marry.

Only a C of E religious service can create a legal marriage in England. All others have to include the wording of the civil ceremony somewhere.