Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Tuesday, November 28, 2006 | Reason : Political | print version Print | Comments

Document The end of one law for all?

by Innes Bowen / BBC

Reposted from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6190080.stm

faizulEthnic and religious courts are gaining ground in the UK. Will this lead to different justice for different people?

Aydarus Yusuf has lived in the UK for the past 15 years, but he feels more bound by the traditional law of his country of birth - Somalia - than he does by the law of England and Wales.

"Us Somalis, wherever we are in the world, we have our own law. It's not Islamic, it's not religious - it's just a cultural thing."

The 29-year-old youth worker wants to ensure that other members of his community remain subject to the law of their ancestors too - he helps convene an unofficial Somali court, or "gar", in south-east London.

Aydarus is not alone in this desire. A number of parallel legal universes have been quietly evolving among minority communities. As well as Somali customary law, Islamic and Jewish laws are being applied and enforced in parts of the UK.

Islamic and Jewish law remains confined to civil matters. But the BBC's Law in Action programme has learned that the Somali court hears criminal cases too.

One of the most serious cases it has dealt with was the "trial" of a group of young men accused of stabbing a fellow Somali.

"When the suspects were released on bail by the police, we got the witnesses and families together for a hearing," says Aydarus. "The accused men admitted their guilt and apologised. Their fathers and uncles agreed compensation."

'Legal pluralism'

So how did this court come about? Some academic lawyers see these alternative legal systems as an inevitable - and welcome - consequence of multiculturalism.

Dr Prakash Shah, of London's Queen Mary University, advocates this "legal pluralism".

"Tribunals like the Somali court could be more effective than the formal legal system in maintaining social harmony."

Former judge Gerald Butler QC says that while courts such as the Jewish Beth Din can work properly, it's essential that all of the involved parties "freely and voluntarily agree to the jurisdiction... and that they conduct their proceedings fairly and properly". He adds: "What they mustn't do - and this must never happen - is to stray into the field of criminal matters. That simply would never be acceptable."

While religious leaders in the UK's Jewish and Muslim communities have not sought to enforce their own versions of criminal law, they have steadily built up their capacity to deal with civil matters within their own religious codes. What's more, they are doing it with the help of English law.

The Beth Din is the most formally entrenched of these minority courts. The UK's main Beth Din is based in Finchley, north London.

It oversees a wide range of cases including divorce settlements, contractual rows between traders and tenancy disputes.

The court cannot force anyone to come within its jurisdiction. But once someone agrees to settle a dispute in the Beth Din, he or she is bound in English law to abide by the court's decision.

This is because under English law people may devise their own way to settle a dispute before an agreed third party.

Crucially, the legislation does not insist that settlements must be based on English law; all that matters is the outcome is reasonable and both parties agree to the process. And it's in this space that religious courts, applying the laws of another culture, are growing in the UK.

"Orthodox Jews go to the Beth Din to settle their disputes," says Jonathan Greenwood, a solicitor who represents many Jewish businessmen at the court.

"They believe it is a religious obligation to go there [and seek redress under Jewish law] rather than the secular courts. But it is also usually quicker and cheaper."

Sharia law

Amongst the UK's Muslims there are sharply contrasting views about Sharia or Islamic law in the UK. Sharia is the historic legal foundations of the Islamic world - like English law, it has developed over centuries but is based on simple principles.

In an ICM survey of 500 British Muslims carried out in February 2006, 40% of respondents said they would support the introduction of Sharia in predominantly Muslim areas of Britain.

The UK's most prominent Muslim organisation, the Muslim Council of Britain, opposes the idea, saying it will not support a dual legal system.

But some of Britain's Islamic scholars have called for a different approach - Sharia legal code in areas such as family and inheritance, applied through the secular courts.

Mohammed Shahid Raza, a leading Islamic scholar, claims this is a workable model with a British precedent: "When Britain was ruling India, there was a separate legal code for Muslims, organised and regulated by British experts of law."

There is already a network of Sharia councils in the UK. They are not recognised as courts but are seen as essential by those Muslims seeking advice and religious sanction in matters such as divorce.

Ayesha Begum sought an Islamic divorce from the Muslim Law Shariah Council in west London.

"I had obtained a divorce in the secular courts - but my husband refused to divorce me Islamically. In English law I was seen as a single woman but by Islamic law I was still married to him.

"I'm a practising Muslim and I wanted to do the right things in the eyes of God. It was very important I obtained an Islamic divorce."

But Cassandra Balchin, a convert to Islam and spokeswoman for the group Women Living Under Muslim Laws, is concerned about the growth of these minority legal systems.

"Very often traditional forms of mediation can disadvantage vulnerable groups, such as women, within a community.

"I'm concerned about how much choice the weaker party would have in submitting to the governance of these alternative forums."

Despite Ms Balchin's fears, Sharia councils have already begun to follow the Jewish model of turning themselves into recognised courts of arbitration.

Faisal Aqtab Siddiqi, a commercial law barrister and head of the Hijaz College Islamic University in Warwickshire, says he has already adjudicated in a number of contractual disputes.

"Because we follow the same process as any case of arbitration, our decisions are binding in English law. Unless our decisions are unreasonable, they are recognised by the High Court."

Law in Action is on Radio 4, Tuesdays at 1600 GMT, or any time at the Law in Action website.


Do you know of any other alternative courts in the UK? If so, please let the BBC know:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6190080.stm

Comments 1 - 27 of 27 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #10612 by Randy Ping on November 28, 2006 at 2:47 pm

<<
Aydarus Yusuf has lived in the UK for the past 15 years, but he feels more bound by the traditional law of his country of birth - Somalia - than he does by the law of England and Wales.
>>

Then he should slog his happy little arse back to Somalia. When you imigrate to a country, you are obliged to THEIR laws.

2. Comment #10623 by Skeptic Jim on November 28, 2006 at 4:04 pm

>When you imigrate to a country, you are obliged to THEIR laws

Does that apply to Englishmen who get the death penalty in Pakistan?

3. Comment #10636 by Dustin on November 28, 2006 at 4:50 pm

"Does that apply to Englishmen who get the death penalty in Pakistan?"

Simple answer: Yes.

4. Comment #10638 by Anonymous on November 28, 2006 at 4:57 pm

We put a stop to that sort of thing in Canada:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4236762.stm

5. Comment #10645 by Anat on November 28, 2006 at 5:37 pm

It is one thing for people to seek arbitration by mutual consent for civil matters or even for a community to impose social sanctions on its members and an entirely different one for a community to infringe on protected rights. If a community is going to shun people that do not adhere to its convention - well, you cannot force people to like you, but you can still find yourself some other community to live within. But if such communities start incarcerating people - that would be kidnapping. And other physical punishments would be assault and worse.

6. Comment #10646 by Bob Johnson on November 28, 2006 at 5:41 pm

Ah, but we do have this in the U.S. Most civil cases end up in pre-court settlements. Sometimes we are required to settle by arbitration - outside of court. AND do forget "Judge Judy" (a television show for non-US folks) were both sides can resolve their legal problems without a goverment justice system.

7. Comment #10650 by One Eyed Jack on November 28, 2006 at 6:37 pm

I can't see how this is a good thing. Can anyone say slippery slope? I just see this potentially fostering an attitude of "I am not subject to your secular laws. I only answer to God's law."

To Bob Johnson,

I see your point. While I can accept Judge Judy because it is primarily entertainment, I'm not ready for "Judge Jesus".

8. Comment #10654 by Anonymous on November 28, 2006 at 7:14 pm

"Parents fly in African village elders to circumcise their young daughters"

"Despite the dangers, many African Muslim communities prize the ritual and ostracise women who are not circumcised.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-2416783.html

9. Comment #10668 by Ian H Spedding FCD on November 28, 2006 at 8:54 pm

I wonder how well Muslim countries would tolerate enclaves of Westerners who tried to set up civil courts run on a British common law model, for example?

10. Comment #10669 by Randy Ping on November 28, 2006 at 8:56 pm

They wouldn't, Ian.

11. Comment #10674 by Ohnhai on November 28, 2006 at 9:41 pm

Sorry but there IS no leaway.

If you emigrate or visit any country then you are agreeing to be bound by the law of that land. To simply ignore it in perference for any other leagal system other then the one established and up held by the nation you are in is simply intollerable.

If you wish to be bound by, and only by, the leagal system of your choosing then please go and live where that system is the established law of the land.(that applies to everyone and not just the natives of the land of the alien leagal system.)

12. Comment #10679 by Roy on November 28, 2006 at 10:32 pm

Absolutely Ohnhai. When in Rome....

13. Comment #10685 by maatnofret on November 28, 2006 at 11:34 pm

Ah, but we *do* have this in the US. At least we have a Beth Din. Check it out:

http://www.bethdin.org/

This particular Beth Din is only forty years old. However, separate Yiddish courts have been in America as long as Jews have been in America. Their rulings are limited to civil matters such as family law and financial disputes. As far as I can tell, their services are similar to those offered by secular alternative dispute resolution firms.

I do not think that anyone has tried to set up Sharia courts in the US. I doubt it would fly. Even in Detroit, which has a very large Mideast population, many of the muslims have been secularized. They do not wear headscarves and beards (respectively), and they send their children to non-sectarian schools. In fact, a lot of them had fled from Iran after it came under Muslim theocratic rule. (At least, most of them were like that when I was growing up. Maybe things have changed since I have been away?)

14. Comment #10711 by Anonymous on November 29, 2006 at 2:29 am

For FUCK's sake. What is HAPPENING to this country?!?

15. Comment #10720 by Hugh on November 29, 2006 at 2:54 am

In criminal cases, absolutely not! In civil cases, if both parties agree I see no problem. If not then the laws of the country they chose to live in should apply.

16. Comment #10721 by Anonymous on November 29, 2006 at 3:00 am

A lot of comments here seem not to distinguish between civil and criminal law and the fact that English law appears to legislate for external civil courts therefore these courts are by definition under the jurisdiction of English law. (If they see criminal cases then they are guilty of obstruction of justice or some such thing...)

I think everyone would rather see disagreements handled between the people that disagree rather than burdening the courts with extra nonsense. It is therefore a very good idea to encourage external arbitration.

No?

17. Comment #10751 by Bob Russell on November 29, 2006 at 4:52 am

This is nuts...what happens when the victim is of one culture and the accused is of another? Who's cultural traditions (superstitons) would apply?

18. Comment #10754 by Simon on November 29, 2006 at 5:13 am

It's bullshit like this that makes more and more Britons vote for the BNP.

I'm glad I don't live in the UK anymore.

R.I.P Britain.

:-(

19. Comment #10761 by thegashman on November 29, 2006 at 5:30 am

This doesn't preclude any normal prosecution or trial procedures under normal UK law though. As the article states, in the case of assault the police won't do anything anyway if the victim doesn't want to press charges. If they feel happier going to a "faith" trial, so be it, our legal system is over-stretched as it is.

It seems to me that this type of trial would only happen with folk of the same religion and doesn't even then put them outside of UK law. I don't think we're looking at a Somalian murderer being let off scot free because of some bizarre Sharia trial bylaw.

If a Muslim car thief steals your car this won't exempt him from prosecution and punishment. From a secular viewpoint, surely as long this type of court doesn't impinge on State due process, where's the problem?

The "shame" aspect of the trial with family present is interesting though and something that I would welcome in UK courts. In another article, Aydarus mentions, and really singles out, the effectiveness that bringing shame on the family has as a crime deterrent and from that I would posit comes a moral standpoint that does not involve God. ie the offender is not going to "mend their ways" out of obedience to God or their religion, but because they will bring shame on their family.

Isn't that one of the "social pressure" atheist arguments on the trues origin or morality?

20. Comment #10763 by Stublore on November 29, 2006 at 5:31 am

One of the most serious cases it has dealt with was the "trial" of a group of young men accused of stabbing a fellow Somali.

"When the suspects were released on bail by the police, we got the witnesses and families together for a hearing," says Aydarus. "The accused men admitted their guilt and apologised. Their fathers and uncles agreed compensation."

So let me get this straight, a guy was stabbed, the perp's admitted it in "cultural court", and paid some money to the victim!!!
WTF!!
So if i apply to a non english minority and am accepted, then any crimes i commit will be dealt with under their law system???
This is well and truly PC crap run amok, because as we all know, many cultures have somewhat different ideas not only about what justice is, but also who can actually avail of it, and what the penalty should be. And the most disgusting thing of all it seems to me is that you can actually buy your way out of your crimes.

21. Comment #10792 by Simon Quick on November 29, 2006 at 8:26 am

Please note that, although my first reaction on reading the headline was very much the same as most, further reading showed it to be rather misleading. The issues in hand here are not criminal matters they are, as I understand it, civil disputes they are not even legal matters. As such they are matters commonly dealt with by arbitration or mediation in the UK and other countries very successfully and without reference to the courts. All matters that have a legal impact or are criminal matters must be put before the police or the courts.

This said, the procedures of commerical mediation demand total impartiality on the part of the mediator; and, by definition, the parties define the objective criteria with which to assess the merits or otherwise of the party's own suggested proposals. No reference is usually made to laws - other than proposals must be legal - or religious norms. The parties NOT the mediator take the decision.
And this is where is Ms Balchin is correct, ( though not her use of the word mediation ) if a party in such proceedings is seen as 'a lessor' the result is a in fact a 'kangaroo court', particularly as the decision being taken by a quasi-judge.

This is what I fear is happening here, it is not mediation but a judgmental process based on the laws of religions whose values may well out of line with the common law of the land.
For the sake of fairness there is no reason why such disputes cannot be settled by professional commercial or family mediators or arbitrators without resroting to using a religious process, value system or similar.

22. Comment #10844 by Stublore on November 29, 2006 at 12:16 pm

Comment #10817 by John Daigle on November 29, 2006 at 9:52 am

"And the most disgusting thing of all it seems to me is that you can actually buy your way out of your crimes."
------------

"I don't see why this is disgusting. Its the justice that the victims wanted. If the victim of the crime had wanted to press criminal charges under british law, this would have been dealt with as a crime under that law.

If people voluntarily choose to live by a set of rules, and I am not compelled to accept those rules myself, why should I care? "

Well 1st off, given all the hype in the british media at the moment about the dangers of knife crime, i am utterly amazed that the british police did/could not pursue this matter, i think it's outrageous that if the victim does not want to press charges, then the police simply drop the case, esp where the victim can claim a monetary reward for their inaction. Is this a common practice under british law, and if so what other crimes cannot be prosecuted in this manner?
Thats a very good question, why should you care about a group of people living in your country, who are governed by rules that you are not bound by. Why be worried that potential thugs can prey on "their own kind", providing they have the means to buy their way out of any trouble they may inflict on "their people", after all this will in no way affect the way they behave in society at large. And why should you care about the injustices that will be perpetrated on the most vulnerable members of society, esp if they have no option of asking "your" society for the help they need.
Afterall, if as the article says, that at least one court can hear criminal matters, and to my mind stabbing someone is a VERY serious offence, then soon all the minorities will be asking for the same thing, perhaps rape, or "honor killings" etc could be addressed under these cultures laws, would it be so unreasonable to ask that all "crimes" against those who practice these cultures, be dealt with under that cultures laws.
When you leave your own country, and particpate in anothers it is hardly conducive to integration to practice your own ideas about how the law should be based, rather than adopt the laws of the culture you are now part of.
But then again perhaps my view of this is skewed??

23. Comment #10912 by John Phillips on December 1, 2006 at 12:01 pm

Please people, do read it fully, for while I agree that there are many questionable aspects of multiculturalism, this is not of one of them. English common law already allows for disputes to be handled outside the judicial system as long as ALL the participants agree and it doesn't try to override the judiciary in criminal cases. As to the Somali example, paying compensation for injury and even death is the norm in many muslim countries usually alongside or part of a judicial sentence. The correctness or not of the amount usually being the perogatuve of the victim or their family. The real danger here, is for the disadvantaged in some sections of society, such as muslim women for instance, being forced to participate against their will through cultural or family pressure.

24. Comment #11179 by Jim on December 3, 2006 at 2:50 pm

It seems to me that what characterizes governments is that they are the only legitimate wielders of force. The only way a non-governmental body could impose its will would be through vigilanteism or with the sanction of government. Its rulings otherwise would be without teeth and meaningless.

Once you enter another country, you are subject to their laws, as, for example, so many foreign drug users have discovered to their peril.

25. Comment #11486 by Kimpatsu on December 5, 2006 at 1:18 am

 avatarRoy, you wrote "When in Rome..."
Quite right. When on OUR planet, do as WE do.

Other Comments by Kimpatsu

26. Comment #11875 by Sean on December 8, 2006 at 1:53 am

Forty-Two wrote:

"Furthermore, a non- citizen should not be allowed to enter or remain in the US if that person is known to believe that US laws should not be obeyed if they contradict Sharia law."

Christians and Jews who follow the words of their holy books would also be be refused entry. Their god has given them plenty of rules that would be contrary to US law. Killing a man for collecting sticks on the sabbath is one example that comes to mind.

Arbitration is a valuable service that saves money and can be less stressful than delving in to the legal system. Arbitration with a religious bent is not such a good idea though. I suspect that there will be peer pressure to 'be a good Muslim' and use this shariah 'court' rather than the proper authorities.

I do wonder what such a court is doing dealing with a stabbing case. I hope that charges were not dropped simply because the attacker agreed to abide by the decision of the sky-god court.

Other Comments by Sean

27. Comment #17819 by Fouad Boussetta on January 16, 2007 at 6:51 pm

 avatar"I had obtained a divorce in the secular courts - but my husband refused to divorce me Islamically. In English law I was seen as a single woman but by Islamic law I was still married to him. I'm a practising Muslim and I wanted to do the right things in the eyes of God. It was very important I obtained an Islamic divorce."

[Sigh]...People are so stupid.

Other Comments by Fouad Boussetta
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: