Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Minority women impacted by Sharia 'courts' in UK

13 replies

NonnyMouse1337 · 07/11/2019 10:47

I'm not affiliated in any way to the campaign, but have always taken an interest in these issues since it leaves minority women susceptible to discrimination due to parallel religious systems that usually enforce their own rulings on them.

Full statement here - onelawforall.org.uk/dont-lock-women-out-of-justice-equality-not-discrimination/

Don’t Lock Women Out of Justice: Equality Not Discrimination

Significant case on women’s rights following break up of marriage at the Court of Appeal

Join the One Law for All campaign at the Court of Appeal on 12/13 November to support the protection of women’s rights on the break-up of their marriages. Southall Black Sisters (SBS) is intervening in an important case with far-reaching implications for women’s rights.

On 31 July 2018, Mr Justice Williams, a family court judge decided Ms Nasreen Akhter was entitled to a decree of nullity of marriage, following the break-up of her 18 year old marriage. She had had a nikkah ceremony resulting in a Muslim marriage contract between herself and her husband, Mr Mohammed Khan. The couple were widely recognised as married in Britain and the UAE (where they lived from 2005 to 2011) for tax and other purposes. Although Ms Akhter wanted a civil marriage and believed one would take place, it never happened because Ms Akhter’s husband refused to have a civil marriage. The marriage ended following her husband’s suggestion that he take another wife. When the marriage broke down, he claimed that they had never been married and that he owed his wife nothing because their relationship constituted a ‘non-marriage’.

In court, the judge determined that ‘save for the issue of legal validity, this was a marriage and a long one at that’. He concluded that in the interests of human rights and justice, the marriage should be recognised as ‘void’ and granted a decree of nullity which allows Ms Akhter to claim the financial remedies that allow the family court to achieve a fair distribution of their family finances .

Because of the importance of the issue, the Attorney-General was made a party to the proceedings. The Attorney-General has appealed against this decision, arguing that the judge was wrong to recognise the marriage as ‘void’.

Our legal intervention

Ms Akhter and her husband are no longer taking an active part in the appeal but we are intervening to support the decision of Mr Justice Williams.

We regard Mr Justice William’s judgment to be just and humane. It will assist many women who believe that they are validly married to access justice through the family courts. If the appeal succeeds, the law will continue to trap minority women, particularly Muslims, in a legal limbo when they are coerced or deceived into having only a religious marriage contract rather than a valid civil marriage which is recognised in law. It will encourage women to access sharia and other religious ‘courts’ to resolve marital issues.

Discrimination

It is extraordinary that the government is pushing for this discriminatory conclusion since it will entrench even more the power of sharia ‘courts’ to arbitrate over family matters in accordance with fundamentalist and ultra-conservative norms.

Extensive research conducted by One Law for All, including dozens of interviews with women who have experienced the horrors of ‘sharia law’ in Britain, shows how women are traumatised and humiliated in a system weighted against them. The result is that polygamous marriages are increasing and men are walking away from any responsibility at the end of a marriage. The government has failed to act against sharia ‘courts’ and has ended legal aid for family matters. Now it seeks to deprive minority women of their rights in the civil justice system.

We argue that if the appeal is allowed, the law will be discriminatory. Christian women in a similar situation would be able to have their marriages declared ‘void’, and thus have access to financial remedies from the courts, but women who have married in another religious system, may not. This is not about recognising religious marriages; it is about the state guaranteeing equality to all before the law.

We say EQUALITY NOT DISCRIMINATION.

We need your support to make equality a reality for minority women.

Join our protest outside the Court of Appeal on 12/13 November at 9.30am. (We are not sure of the exact date but please contact us or check our websites for updates.)

OP posts:
Ereshkigal · 07/11/2019 11:26

I agree with this campaign OP. This case is quite a complex situation to get your head around but we shouldn't have a parallel quasi legal system that disadvantages women and is potentially in breach of the EA in terms of women's rights under it.

Southall Black Sisters are a brilliant feminist organisation who've fought for the rights of black and minority ethnic women for years. That is true intersectionality.

Michelleoftheresistance · 07/11/2019 12:02

Agree completely.

Funny thing too, all of the disadvantaged women in question have biology in common, and can't identify out of their situation, which is arranged and controlled for them by men who have biology in common. Almost like the biology bit is relevant in disadvantage.

LangCleg · 07/11/2019 12:32

Yes. Concur that this is an excellent campaign. It is kind of tricky to get one's head around but it's rather like protecting women via the old concept of common law marriage.

MockersthefeMANist · 07/11/2019 13:00

Any interest in the Beth Din and the very similar problem facing Orthodox Jewish women who cannot get a gett?

sawdustformypony · 07/11/2019 13:25

Marriage is just signing yourself up to be subjected to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

Bugger that for a game of Mummies and Daddies. Happy co-habitation is the only way.

NonnyMouse1337 · 07/11/2019 13:52

MockersthefeMANist I do remember the issues faced by Orthodox Jewish women also being mentioned in the past, but I don't know if there's been any recent progress.
These topics have little to no exposure in the wider sphere of secular and feminist organisations and are ignored by all, including government bodies, because they don't want to be seen as criticising minority groups. Angry

OP posts:
Patte · 07/11/2019 14:42

I should preface by saying that I support efforts to help women in this situation, and something needs to be done. I am concerned though that if the courts just accept that a Muslim marriage without a marriage certificate is valid, it legalises polygyny by the back door.

I may have misunderstood the position, and am happy to be corrected.

NonnyMouse1337 · 07/11/2019 15:15

Patte as I understand it, it's not about ruling that Islamic marriages are legally recognised, but it focuses on the decision that, given the circumstances, for all intents and purposes the Muslim woman was married and that she is entitled to claim some of her share of financial and material assets since her husband insisted he had no obligation towards her due to their marriage not being legally recognised.

I suppose it could be viewed as a way of saying that there can be some legal recognition of Islamic marriages, but I don't see how else the judge could find a way to ensure she was not left penniless by her husband.

OP posts:
NonnyMouse1337 · 07/11/2019 15:23

sawdustformypony as much as I'd like to see a complete overhaul of the legal structure of marriage, it does provide a safety net for many women, especially when children are involved or the woman has little or no financial independence. Since it is a legally binding contract, it does offer some protection against husbands who try to desert and weasel their way out financial support.

OP posts:
BarbaraStrozzi · 07/11/2019 15:57

I'm with Patti. It's all about mission creep and unintended consequences.

Tragic as it is for this individual woman, it would have two unintended consequences. One would be to give religious rulings a legal status which we cannot allow them to have in a secular society. The other would be to introduce by stealth a legally binding concept of common law marriage which would apply not just to religious couples but (given anti discrimination laws) to all couples, thus removing choice from those of us who wish to maintain long term sexual relationships without giving our partners financial rights to our property. The legal decision to pool financial rights and obligations should be opt in, not opt out. (For the avoidance of doubt:I'm a 50 something woman single parent who's paid off her mortgage - no way would I want a man moving in with me then claiming half my house.)

I would however be firmly behind a massive education campaign to educate people that religious courts and systems like Sharia and Beth Din have no legal standing. I would also like to see the Anglican church have its "special status" removed so that people marrying in Anglican churches have to get a separate legal marriage certificate same as everyone else.

sawdustformypony · 07/11/2019 16:31

As much as I'd like to see a complete overhaul of the legal structure of marriage

Begs the question then, as to what you would want to see in this overhaul ?

I would agree with you about it how the marriage enables divorcing spouses to apply for a financial settlement - but it kinda seems to me that's all it does - signs you up eventually for the MCA 1973. What else does it really do (maybe some minor tax relief - does that still happen ?). Ooh and to furnish a massive 'wedding' industry.

Why not stay co-habiting, make fair arrangements what should happen if you split up - have a party to celebrate said arrangement and at the do wear a white silly dress if you really must and / or wear a kilt if there is a smidge of Scots blood in you, if you really must.

NonnyMouse1337 · 07/11/2019 18:23

BarbaraStrozzi from the snippet in the statement it would seem that the judge wasn't claiming to address the legality of the Islamic marriage.

In court, the judge determined that ‘save for the issue of legal validity, this was a marriage and a long one at that’.

Though I can see the concern about unintended consequences.

I agree about increasing public awareness about religious systems having no legal standing and removing the caveat for the Anglican church.

OP posts:
NonnyMouse1337 · 07/11/2019 19:54

sawdustformypony ( like your username btw lol)

Well I haven't put in a whole lot of thought behind it, but my general idea around restructuring the marriage system in brief:

Abolish marriage in its present form.
Split into two separate categories -
a) committment ceremony (aka still termed as marriage for those who prefer it) - has no legal standing and is of no concern to the government. People can have their traditional, religious, and cultural ceremonies as they currently do.

B) civil partnership - legally binding and is only issued by government. Contract signed by two adults, irrespective of sex or sexual orientation.

Contract specifies rights and protections to cover both parties in case of death or divorce. Option for standard one which covers pretty much everything in the way that marriage does at the moment, or for additional fee, couples can customise it to a certain extent.

If either side decides they no longer want to be in a civil partnership, then both partners appear at registry office and sign declaration to terminate contract. Assets split and finances separated as usual if straightforward case. No need to force people to provide adultery or vague shit like irreconcilable differences or living apart for years. Makes no sense.

If children involved, then need family court involved to ensure children's wellbeing comes first etc.

It's pretty much similar to what legal marriage is at present but in a more secular, pragmatic manner that is separated from the ceremonial, personal aspect.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread