Andrea Leadsom quits Conservative leadership race (Theresa May will be next UK PM)

BBC ^ | 11 July 2016

[naturalman1975]

If and when you have time, I’d appreciate your take on this article below.

Sure.

Sharia 'Courts' as some people call them have basically no legal status in the United Kingdom. But people have the right to apply any principles they like in private negotiations between people who consent to those principles.

Here's an analogy for you - getting a loan from a payday lender versus getting a private loan from an acquaintance versus getting a loan from a loanshark.

The first is governed by laws and regulations. The government has some degree of power to, for example, set rules on how great the interest rates are. The second is virtually unregulated - you can negotiate any interest rate you like between you and your acquaintance. The third could be quite similar to the second, but in that case, there is a known danger that the situation could become exploitative.

At the moment, 'Sharia Courts' in the UK should be roughly analogous to the middle case of those three scenarios - they are outside any significant official regulation, but they are only meant to be used by people who want to use them, and who voluntarily choose to abide by their principles. And, for the most part, that does seem to be the case.

However, there is real concern - for what I think are obvious reasons - that there is a risk that such 'Courts' could cross the line, in particular, there is worry about a risk that the rights of women could be given lower priority than the rights of men in certain cases, and that women may feel pressured to engage with these 'Courts' in a way that is not voluntary and their choice in cases involving divorce.

The question arises then how to manage this risk, and it's in that context, that Theresa May has, as Home Secretary, talked about looking at the functioning of such 'Courts'.

She has been clear that any such 'Courts' cannot function outside of British law, and cannot make rulings contrary to British law. But if they limit themselves to rulings that are consistent with British law, that's absolutely fine. So if a negotiation through a Sharia based process arrives at, for example, an agreement on joint custody concerning the children of a divorced couple that both mother and father agree to, that is consistent with the same type of arrangement that they might have amicably reached by negotiating between their lawyers in any other divorce case, that's legally fine.

The inquiry the article is talking about - an inquiry Theresa May initiated - is specifically intended to look into whether these Sharia based bodies are acting in a way consistent with British law in terms of such areas where voluntary agreement and mediation is possible. What some groups and the article are trying to class as her 'support for Sharia' is really more a matter of her saying (my paraphrase) "If you are, in fact, as you say, following British law then you have nothing to fear from this inquiry." But it's equally clear that if problems are found that suggest that isn't happening, that will be addressed. Her most important quote in the article is this one: "So there is one rule of law in the UK"

Some people believe that it would be best to shut down these 'Courts' - and if they really were 'Courts' in the classic sense, that might be true. But what they are in reality is voluntary mediators similar to many others that already operate in the UK. The closest analogy to them is actually the Jewish Beth Din, but Catholics also have similar bodies, as do a number of other Christian denominations.

I’m also wondering how Geller and Spencer could be banned, but so many radical imams and other radical Islamists who actually taught violence, would be allowed.

Again, it's because of the way the law operates. "Religious speech" has certain protections that other forms of speech do not (I believe these are primarily under provisions in the Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006 - again a law introduced before Theresa May was Home Secretary). Geller and Spencer could not claim their speech was 'religious' in nature. It's a lot harder to ban a religious figure than a secular one - not impossible and there are in fact more Muslims banned than any other group of people, but the threshold required for a ban is higher.

[little jeremiah]

Thank you very much. Your reasoning, experience and knowledge are very helpful.

[little jeremiah]

Again, thanks for the explanation.