OVER 300 ABUSED WOMEN ISSUE STATEMENT AGAINST PARALLEL LEGAL SYSTEMS: WHO WILL LISTEN TO OUR VOICES?

from Maryam Namazie

“We oppose any religious body – whether presided over by men or women – that seeks to rule over us.” So say more than 300 mostly Muslim women, but also others from different faiths who have been abused in their personal lives. From their own lived experiences, these women are voicing their alarm, through a powerful statement published today, about the growing power of religious bodies such as Sharia councils.  Read the full statement.

 

SHARIA COURTS HAVE NO PLACE IN UK FAMILY LAW: LISTEN TO THE WOMEN WHO KNOW

In a piece also published today, Southall Black Sisters Director Pragna Patel states: “Our demand is simple: no religious arbitration of any kind in family matters. We want a secular law underpinned by human rights values to be applicable to all without exception. As the One Law for All campaign has continued to assert, this is the only way to guarantee freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion. The challenges we face are too important to be reduced to a crude and regressive politics of representation”.  Read full article.

 

DEVASTATING NEW EVIDENCE AGAINST SHARIA COURTS IN BRITAIN

Also published this week is devastating new evidence submitted by One Law for All to the Home Affairs Select Committee. It reveals how Sharia councils violate human rights, how discrimination and violence lie at the heart of the courts, how they are linked to the transnational Islamist movement, and why they are a parallel legal system, which must be dismantled.  The submission also objects to Naz Shah’s line of questioning of Spokesperson Maryam Namazie and accusations of “Islamophobia” and “anti-faith” to discredit secular voices.

The evidence unequivocally finds that Britain is failing to meet its obligations to gender equality in family relations as specified in CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women) by permitting the continuation of these courts. Read the full submission.

Previous submissions to the Home Affairs Select Committee by One Law for All, Southall Black Sisters, IKWRO, Centre for Secular Space, Yasmin Rehman and British Muslims for Secular Democracy can be seen here.

 

Personal testimonies from women whose rights have been violated by Sharia courts continue to be added to our website.

#ONELAWFORALLBECAUSE  

#STRUGGLENOTSUBMISSION

We are calling on black and minority women and men as well as secularists and women’s rights campaigners to highlight why they are opposed to parallel legal systems and defend one secular law for all. Post your messages on social media using the above hashtags, including with your photo. See some messages here.

SUPPORT THE IMPORTANT WORK OF THE ONE LAW FOR ALL COALITION

Please continue to support the work of the One Law for All coalition by donating. No amount is too small and every little helps. A special thanks to those who donate on a regular basis. We can’t tell you what a difference it makes.

 

15 COMMENTS

  1. @OP – In a piece also published today, Southall Black Sisters Director Pragna Patel states:
    “Our demand is simple: no religious arbitration of any kind in family matters.

    Where such arbitration systems exist outside the courts, there is always the danger of people who find themselves in difficult positions, being pressurised by religious busybodies, or seeking advice from well-meaning but deluded family members, when trying to find their way around legal systems.

    Where there are marriage or family problems, there are various religious dogma based organisations, which pose as “counselling services”.
    (opposing divorce, abortions, secular education, etc.)
    These act in the interests of best promoting religious dogmas – not objectively looking after the best interests or welfare of the people.

  2. All power to Maryam Namazie, and for that matter Maajid Nawaz and now Ayan Hirsi Ali working within communities.

    Shame to Naz Shah and all the regressive left for failing to see people, individuals making individual judgements, as the bedrock of a society’s morality.

  3. @2
    Maryam Namazie was treated like a criminal at a university she went to give a talk at.Disgusting.
    The pro Islamic leftist feminazi safe space morons and SJW idiots at work, paving way for theocratic fascists at our unis and probably in parliament.
    I hope they are proud.

  4. Well, and I am sorry to mention but UK is not a sovereign state based on Law, (if there was a contititutional Law for intance), law that that would apply necessarly to all citizens, that´s sovereign Law.
    Hope Maryam Namazie contitunes to fight this dark side of bad “multiculturalism”, shame on UK for this.

  5. maria melo #4
    Dec 17, 2016 at 5:41 am

    Well, and I am sorry to mention but UK is not a sovereign state based on Law, (if there was a contititutional Law for intance), law that that would apply necessarly to all citizens, that´s sovereign Law.

    The UK is a group of sovereign states (England Scotland N. Ireland and Wales), with over arching laws and individual country’s laws based on legislation and legal precedent. These apply to all citizens and all residents.

  6. Well, guess this is marginal to the Law-British Law-, it is not even comparative application of Law (as may daily do in my job in a Minor´s and Family´s court, a few days ago when I had the task to join comparable legislation between Portguese and Angola´s family law, or when I was aware gipsy of a cultural tradiotion that married a minor girl without the consent of her parents- and the husband´s family-another minor boy- seems to rule over the girl as kind of slave), even the article mentions it saying so:

    SHARIA COURTS HAVE NO PLACE IN UK FAMILY LAW: LISTEN TO THE WOMEN WHO
    KNOW.

    Well at first I thought it could be so (against all the odds of my own expeience, which is quite dumb-, but seems it cannot be possible, it´s only marginal to the Law.

  7. maria melo #6
    Dec 17, 2016 at 9:07 am

    Well, guess this is marginal to the Law-British Law-,

    In British law arbitration is for settling civil disputes, such as building contracts, but it does not over-ride statutory law, and if arbitration breaks statutory laws, it can be over-ridden by the courts.

  8. “Parallel legal system”, is a correct expression for the example of what experience in my job: Portuguese and Angola´s Civil Codes were one and the same, now are sligltly different (a recent evolution made it different), but in both codes it is mentioned a connection that enables Courts can sentence based in both codes depending on the nationaility of paties.

    Sharia can never be parallel to any Law codice in wetern as it has historically a total different background, nor does it evolve (that´s why it is fundamentalist by definition), nor did the prophet mention that Civil Codices can apply ?????
    Following the link, it mentions certain conditions imams would accept civil Law?
    Political Science, History and Sociology can explain why it is not possible to put the two as “parallel”.

  9. under , certain conditions. I mean
    Sorry for my bad grammar, a good thing I do is to write as short as i can, I really dislike annoying with long texts.

    I wonder if the parliament can invite these people to educate them not to be so fearful because it cannot happen (at least in France for sure).

  10. @10

    care posting on this stuff Maria – it is still regarded as S media
    We dont want you to get in trouble

    I dont know the law on this mods is this ok?

  11. @11

    We’re not lawyers, Pinball, but we can’t see anything in Maria’s posts that could get her or the site into trouble. Not sure why you’re concerned? Her arguments are, so far as we can make out, merely comments on the legal status of the Sharia courts. Whether she’s correct or not, we can’t see any reason why her comments should be legally problematic. If there are any lawyers out there who can advise, we’ll be glad of their input, but otherwise we can’t see any reason for concern.

  12. @12Not trying to make waves or anything it is just that she mentioned a case “a few days ago” perhaps I misread the posts in terms of her role/job
    Apologies Maria /Mods

  13. “I dont know the law on this mods is this ok?”

    Pinball1970

    What I meant was simple : some countries have a basic Law, constitutional Law, where citizen´s most basic rights are consacrated, and it is central to all policies, legislative function of governments, courts functioning… and there is a political role to protect it (the Rep President has that function, all deputies have). Of course if a citizen thinks his/hers most basic rights are being violated they are not being educated as citizens. France is a republic, my own country is a republic, UK does not have a constitution but diverse Laws (and is not a republic) however the Parliament I thought could invite people to reassure their most basic rights as citizens are being protected, and educate them for that? for instance no law can be acceptable if it violates basic constitutional rights, that seems to me that´s why these people seem so fearful. Deputies here, the Rep President, can submit laws(bills?) for appreciation by the Constituional Court to check if there is any violation of basic constitutional rights/priciples. Equality is a basic principle and it seems to me it the concern of these women/people, well I don´t remember any situation in my life that could have triggered concern about the violation of the most basic rights I have as citizen (how good is that?) Just thought for analogy of what is familiar to me and it´s kind of strange because England seems so different. Of course France is a republic and it seems more alike and familiar to me.

  14. maria melo #14
    Dec 23, 2016 at 9:43 am

    UK does not have a constitution but diverse Laws (and is not a republic) however the Parliament I thought could invite people to reassure their most basic rights as citizens are being protected, and educate them for that? for instance no law can be acceptable if it violates basic constitutional rights, that seems to me that´s why these people seem so fearful.

    UK citizens can take human rights issues to the European Court of Human Rights.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights

    The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR; French: Cour européenne des droits de l’homme) is a supra-national or international court established by the European Convention on Human Rights. It hears applications alleging that a contracting state has breached one or more of the human rights provisions concerning civil and political rights set out in the Convention and its protocols. An application can be lodged by an individual, a group of individuals or one or more of the other contracting states, and, besides judgments, the Court can also issue advisory opinions. The Convention was adopted within the context of the Council of Europe, and all of its 47 member states are contracting parties to the Convention. The Court is based in Strasbourg, France.

    Although it is separate from the 28 member EU, it is one of the things Brexiteers and the right-wing don’t like, and one of the things some of their confused “Leave Voters” thought they were voting against against in the referendum!

Leave a Reply