Sharia Law and divorce

[ArabellaScott]

' Religious law in the UK is a vexed question for secularists. In principle, it could be argued that as long as it has no legal force there is no conflict. However, the reality is more complex and there are no easy answers. And with apparent growth in demand for religious 'courts' among other religious groups, it is essential that the issues be discussed frankly and that deference to religion should not obstruct discussion of its shortcomings.'

https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2024/05/we-must-stop-ignoring-the-elephant-in-the-religious-court-room

The article discusses Orthodox Jewish and Islamic sharia courts, both of which lend more weight to the rights of men than women when it comes to divorce.

Good question! I haven't heard much about them - are they proposed for E&W only?

https://www.farrer.co.uk/news-and-insights/cohabiting-couples-is-reform-on-the-horizon/

I am embarrassingly ignorant on the matter, I only came across it on a MN thread. But it seems to be an interest of the Labour party and they were suggesting it would be something they would implement as late as 2023.

https://www.majorfamilylaw.co.uk/labour-party-plans-changes-to-cohabitation-law/#:~:text=If%20the%20relationship%20broke%20down,claims%20under%20very%20limited%20circumstances.

I'm of the school of thought that in E&W, English Law is supreme. No arbitration should be allowed that breaches the principle of equal treatment before the law.

Cohabiting couples in Scotland already have some rights, so it's different than in E&W, although there have been calls to update/modernise this:

'The law relating to financial provision on breakdown of a cohabiting relationship (where a couple are not married or in a civil partnership) has been criticised for being unclear, complicated and in need of modernisation. In particular, the definition of “cohabitant” is regarded as outdated, the time limit for making a claim as lacking in flexibility and there is a lack of guidance as to what principles the court is to apply in determining claims for financial provision. In recognition of these criticisms and of the substantial number of couples in cohabiting relationships in Scotland, our reforms aim to provide cohabitants with a more modern, simpler and fairer scheme for financial provision when their relationships come to an end otherwise than on death.'

https://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/news/an-improved-scheme-for-financial-provision-on-cohabitation-breakdown/

I haven't seen anything more recent on this, that was from 2022.

I don’t imagine uk officials have any problem at all. I thought all of this was fairly common knowledge? It certainly would be known by any woman (or man) affected.

Not just brown women unfortunately. Any women

They have the same rights. The problem is coercion or religious influence being put on women. That would be the case whether or not they were married legally, and with or without Religious courts.
I am in principle uncomfortable with religious courts but if we are to have a system where binding arbitration is allowed, all it is is an agreement between parties to do something, which is then legally enforceable, whichbis available for many disputes and is designed to counteract the adversarial nature of the British legal system. If there is coercion or pressure not to divorce then the person wanting divorce will either have to stay or go through the longer procedure of getting a legal divorce. The problem exists with or without religious courts. At least with the arbitration, there is a different recourse available to them.
Binding arbitration is also only civil, so I think the ' minor domestic violence' is more if there has been domestic violence, the religious courts will be more a dispute resolution service, where the victim doesn't press charges in exchange for arbitration. It doesnt stop them making a criminal complaint afterwards. Frankly, looking at the state of convictions for abuse of women, maybe publicly shaming someone in front of their community and shining light on their behaviour may be better than waiting for the police to do something. This is different to the dead hand of the Catholic Church in Ireland, because the law of the Church was also the law of the land, so no higher authority could be found. With these religious courts, they cannot break UK law, which is still supreme.

Religious courts have no place in this country and should be condemned not accommodated. The ecclesiastical courts of the Middle ages were dismantled for a reason.

I was visited by Jehovah's Witnesses yesterday. An intelligent couple it was fun to talk to. The discussion got on to the election (I had said, facetiously, when I opened the door, that I had been hoping it was canvassers so I could enjoy telling them why I wasn't going to vote for them), and they told me they don't vote as they only do what God says. OK, sez I, but you're still part of the community, aren't you? You have a say in how it's run and, in my view, a moral obligation to support the community by exercising it. I thought they should vote, and said so. My right to tell them what I think - after all, they rang my doorbell.

It works the other way round, too. If people have weird and wonderful (to me) beliefs which are "worthy of respect in a democratic society" - that is, not pernicious or illegal - then they can sort out their affairs as they wish within the law. It's not my job to police the views of Muslims, JWs, Christians, Sikhs, and so on. Nor is it the job of Society As A Whole (that elusive entity which you can never find when you look for it). We have a system of arbitration. There is an Act of Parliament about it, and it's part of UK law. Arbitration has to be agreed, and is not valid if agreement is coerced. These religious courts practise arbitration within the law of the land.

If religious courts aren't doing this properly, then the issue is to improve them, not abolish them.

In my view if you don't like the laws of the country you don't go and live there. Can you imagine 1million brits moving to Saudi and telling them we want our own courts and law?

These are religious rules not laws, made up by men for men. They can play having their little courts but none of it is relevant or enforceable in our society. I don't know why this is being given any air time.

This is a slippery slope, what will be asked for next? I think generally the UK is very tolerant however I do think we are seen as a soft touch on these things which is why people want to come here.

Unfortunately I think Labour are soft on these things and will give way to keep/get the votes of these groups.

In my view if you don't like the laws of the country you don't go and live there. Can you imagine 1million brits moving to Saudi and telling them we want our own courts and law?

Yes, I can! And, by the way, many muslim countries have different laws for non-muslims - which we also do in UK for issues like Sikhs and motorcyle helmets. However, the point I am making is that the 1996 Arbitration Act is UK law, not "their" law. How arbitration works is up to the people who decide to go down that route, as long as it's within the bounds of the law. There is no legal requirement for anyone to conform to some Ideal of Britishness.

@makeanddo your comments sound deliberately incendiary.

Are you now saying that even whilst they are not breaking any uk law, people in Britain should not be able to choose how to resolve their disputes? Or does this only refer to certain types of (non white) British people?

Yes @JustSpeculation exactly. This is just a convenient vehicle for yet more racism/islamophobia/anti semitism.
Any mediation that’s within the law is lawful, who is prev poster to pick and choose which should or should not be allowed.

Groups can resolve their disputes as they like as long as they don't break the law.
I am saying that UK courts should not be influenced/take into account the rules that these religions have. Have a religious 'court'
If you like but it's not enforceable in UK law.

BTW I don't agree with religious groups being excused from certain laws because of their beliefs. I don't agree with different rules for Sikhs as regards motorcycle helmets as quoted below. Helmets are a law for a reason the fact someone believes in something do with a god is irrelevant.

What's to stop me starting a group with rules and then expecting the UK to recognise them. It's madness.

It all depends if they are legally married or not. If they're legally married as determined by British laws then the religious court means nothing, they need to get a divorce through the secular courts and the financial settlement is as per the law of our land.

There are many though that have Islamic marriage but not legal marriage so they do not have the protection of the secular courts.

Not as sure about Jewish marriage because I think many rabbis can legally marry people meaning people need to seek a secular divorce and thus have legal protections.

The bigger issue is that religions can pressurise women to not seek the settlement that they are entitled to have.

Hi @makeanddo, I agree with you except for:

I am saying that UK courts should not be influenced/take into account the rules that these religions have. Have a religious 'court'
If you like but it's not enforceable in UK law.

It's enforceable to the extent that arbitrators' decisions are enforcable under UK Law.

BTW I don't agree with religious groups being excused from certain laws because of their beliefs.

Neither do I in principle. However, the principle can become oppressive. What do you do when beliefs and law clash? There was a thing a few years ago where Jewish unemployed people were cut off from benefits because they refused to work on Saturdays. Laws have to take circumstances into account.

What's to stop me starting a group with rules and then expecting the UK to recognise them. It's madness.

Nothing, except for places where your rights and others clash. This has happened recently, particularly in Scotland! There was a book about it published last week. This kind of clash should be resolved politically.