One Law For All Rally -- Maryam Namazie and Sharia Law

[Wolfman]

I first heard Maryam Namazie speak at the World Humanist Congress in Washington, D.C. two years ago; she's an ex-Muslim atheist who now fights against Islamic extremism in Britain (and assists greatly with similar efforts around the world). She was an incredible speaker, very clearly differentiating her opposition to extreme Islam, and dislike of Muslims in general. She's also an incredibly brave woman, in that she's received numerous death threats as a result of her work.

She is working with others to organize the One Law For All campaign, specifically opposing the implementation, legalization, or tolerance of sharia law in the UK; and generally opposing the implementation of any laws that are based on religion, and/or discriminate based on religion (ie. laws that apply only to people of specific religions, such as laws imposed on people of Jewish faith, Muslim faith, etc.).

On Nov. 21, she is organizing a One Law For All Rally in Hyde Park, London, to mark Universal Children’s Day and International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women by calling for an end to all laws -- particularly sharia law -- that discriminate against or hurt women and children.

In the lead-up to this event, she's been answering a variety of questions about their organization, their goals, and the rally...one which I found very interesting, very much worth the read. In particular, she distances herself very much from other UK groups that are anti-Muslim, and who have sought to use her to support their goals (ie. evicting Muslims and other immigrants from the UK). Overall, I find her perspective to be a very balanced and intelligent one (I have a few points of mild disagreement with her, but nothing really major).

For those unaware of her, and her work, I'd strongly encourage you to check out the info...and those of you who are in the UK might feel inspired to support their rally, also.

 

[Beerina]

Pat Condell has issues with some UK groups that fancy him on their side, them being just covers for groups of people with very racist attitudes.

 

[Hux]

I can understand why she and Condell would feel that way. On other forums I have been described as being racist because I happen to think that allowing Sharia Law any leeway at all, in the UK, would be disgusting.

Many Muslim immigrants worked hard to leave Crapistan to be free of Sharia. They do not want to fall under it's control again. And yet there are those here in public life that cannot differentiate between racism and simple decency. Sure, Muslims represent a small minority here but they can be seen quite frequently beating their gums about any perceived insult or objection to their demands (which tend to be significant and unrepresentative).

Its important that people, especially women(as it seems to piss off Muslims more than when men draw attention to their plight)like Maryam Namazie, are allowed to speak their mind, without fear of personal danger. I wonder whatever became of Ayaan Hirsi? Is she still under protection? I would think she will have to be.

Misogynistic Muslims (and there are many) are really just children in adult bodies and they dont take kindly to a woman pointing this out to the rest of the world.

I hope this lady prospers and that Sharia is allowed no foothold here or in any country that values democracy, fairness and modernity.

 

[Wolfman]

I can understand why she and Condell would feel that way. On other forums I have been described as being racist because I happen to think that allowing Sharia Law any leeway at all, in the UK, would be disgusting.

Many Muslim immigrants worked hard to leave Crapistan to be free of Sharia. They do not want to fall under it's control again.

I think that Maryam would agree with you completely...unfortunately, a lot of the racist groups have latched on to the fear of sharia law as a way to promote their own agendas, and thus those who oppose sharia law end up being tarred with the same feathers.

The key difference -- Maryam wants Muslims, and those of non-European races in general, to have an equal place in British society with everyone else. She wants them to have the freedom to practice their religion...and others to have the freedom to criticize and question it.

What she doesn't want is a 'separate law', where Muslims in Britain are subjected to sharia law (apparently, there is already such a system in place for Jews, but I don't know much about this); she feels that all laws should apply equally to all people, and should be based on secular principles that focus on equality and human rights...not on religious beliefs.

Because she comes from a Muslim background, she focuses on sharia law, but holds the same principles for all other religions and nationalities. I think the title of their movement says it all: "One Law For All"

The racist groups in Britain are acting rather like leeches, trying to latch onto every major event that they hold, to the point where they now actually have taken to ejecting such people from their rallies; and she certainly doesn't hold any punches in her written responses when people from such groups try to claim some sort of affinity with her.

 

[Hux]

I'm not sure about the Jewish Law thing; you may well be right but the UK's Jewish population submit to the country's laws and do not, AFAIK, try to separate law and religious laws.

There is a general perception here that Muslims will not assimilate into their host countries ( which is ironic in the sense of their Borg like behaviour) and demands for Sharia law in their communities just enforces this view. We have a large Hindu population for instance; they do seem to take all measures to assimilate while retaining a deep sense and continuity of their traditions. Whichever way one looks at it, Islam is arrogant and adventurous, demanding things far out of proportion to their populace. They are quite prepared to use democracy to their own ends but shun its principles completely.

 

[brodski]

I first heard Maryam Namazie speak at the World Humanist Congress in Washington, D.C. two years ago; she's an ex-Muslim atheist who now fights against Islamic extremism in Britain (and assists greatly with similar efforts around the world). She was an incredible speaker, very clearly differentiating her opposition to extreme Islam, and dislike of Muslims in general. She's also an incredibly brave woman, in that she's received numerous death threats as a result of her work.

She is working with others to organize the One Law For All campaign, specifically opposing the implementation, legalization, or tolerance of sharia law in the UK; and generally opposing the implementation of any laws that are based on religion, and/or discriminate based on religion (ie. laws that apply only to people of specific religions, such as laws imposed on people of Jewish faith, Muslim faith, etc.).

On Nov. 21, she is organizing a One Law For All Rally in Hyde Park, London, to mark Universal Children’s Day and International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women by calling for an end to all laws -- particularly sharia law -- that discriminate against or hurt women and children.

In the lead-up to this event, she's been answering a variety of questions about their organization, their goals, and the rally...one which I found very interesting, very much worth the read. In particular, she distances herself very much from other UK groups that are anti-Muslim, and who have sought to use her to support their goals (ie. evicting Muslims and other immigrants from the UK). Overall, I find her perspective to be a very balanced and intelligent one (I have a few points of mild disagreement with her, but nothing really major).

For those unaware of her, and her work, I'd strongly encourage you to check out the info...and those of you who are in the UK might feel inspired to support their rally, also.

Wolfman, I'm surprised to see you supporting this given your previously expressed views on religious freedom. I have to assume that you don't understand this campaign (based on your support for it and on your comment about not understanding religious "courts" such as the Jewish Beth Din in the UK legal system.

I'm not surprised that this campaign is misunderstood as it is disingenuous, dishonest and discriminatory.

It is disingenuous as it tries to conflate the introduction of separate criminal and civil laws for different religious groups with the rights of individuals who happen to be from the same religious background to voluntarily enter into binding agreements after private arbitration.

It is dishonest as it does not seek one law for all, it in fact seeks fewer rights for religious people in general (and Muslims specifically) than the rights which are held by the non-religious.


It is discriminatory because it seeks to bar religious people (and Muslims in particular) from equal access to voluntary arbitration, and from working in voluntary arbitration organisations.


There is no credible movement whatsoever to establish religious law in the UK (the rest of my comments will apply specificity to the English and Welsh legal system- I'm not as familiar with Scottish law)

Under English and Welsh law there is no room at all for crimes to apply to certain religious groups, there is no chance of the police or the courts enforcing Sharia law unless Sharia happens to be in line with English and Welsh Law.

Under English and Welsh law parties to a civil dispute get to decide whether to go to court or not- if all parties agree the case can be decided by independent binding arbitration rather than court. All sides voluntarily agree to abide by the arbitration tribunals decision, and enter into a contract to that effect. Even then the decisions of independent arbitrations are subject to English and Welsh law, and can be challenged on a number of grounds in English and Welsh courts and overturned.

One such ground is that the decision violated "natural justice".

Many many different types of arbitration tribunal exist, some such as Beth Din or Sharia "courts" have a religious focus- but nobody is forced to use these courts, and they are subject to review by the state (de facto secular) courts.


In order to remove the influence of religious law in England and Wales you would have to outlaw these bodies, you would have to make it illegal to include religiously motivated clauses in contracts and you would have to prevent anyone with any religious views at all from working in arbitration.

People who sit on arbitration panels are frequently asked to make a judgement about what is right and wrong, I do not see how any religious person can separate their view of what is fundamentally right and wrong from their religious views- morality informs religion and religion informs morality

 

[shandyjan]

Brodski, I havnt read much so far, but what I have I'm wondering if I'm reading the same as you? Its calling for secular law in Britain and no Sharia law. One system for all.Religion is private, secular system protects all including athiests.

 

[Wolfman]

Brodski,

Several points in response:

1) This campaign doesn't talk just about sharia law in the UK; it is about sharia law all over the world. It seeks to make people aware of the abuses that come as a result of sharia law. It acts in support of those in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan that have sharia law, but have little or no opportunity to protest, or to state their case to the wider world.

I support this.

2) More extreme Muslim groups in Canada, the UK, and many other western nations are attempting to set up distinct Muslim enclaves in which they can have their own separate tribunals that are based on sharia law. They may not have accomplished this yet...but they are working towards it. The whole "they can't have laws that break British laws" thing is nonsense, since there are numerous ways that such tribunals can inflict suffering and abuse -- not to mention severe pressure -- on people who live in such communities. A non-Muslim woman wears clothes her father doesn't like...they have a private fight about it. A Muslim woman wears clothes her father doesn't like...she's put in front of a Muslim tribunal. Even if it is ruled that they can't legally punish her, the public stigma and phenomenal pressure from such a situation will still help to enforce rigid sharia-based conduct.

It is disingenuous as it tries to conflate the introduction of separate criminal and civil laws for different religious groups with the rights of individuals who happen to be from the same religious background to voluntarily enter into binding agreements after private arbitration.

So far as I can tell, Maryam says no such thing. Arbitration is already fully and equally available to everyone. And if someone voluntarily submits themselves to the decisions of an arbitrator -- even if that decision is not supported by the law -- it is their right to make such a decision.

This is very different from being placed in front of a group of fundamentalist religious leaders who call themselves "arbitrators", and who base all their decisions upon sharia law. And who use their position as religious leaders to enforce judgments that the subject does not agree with, but is afraid to reject because of strong religious and social pressure.

It is dishonest as it does not seek one law for all, it in fact seeks fewer rights for religious people in general (and Muslims specifically) than the rights which are held by the non-religious.

Sorry, but I don't see this at all -- you're going to have to do more than just state it as an apparently self-evident fact, you'll have to provide evidence for that assertion.

Maryam is not saying that individual Muslims cannot reach agreements between themselves, based on their religious beliefs (so long as such agreements do not break the law, ie. selling a daughter for marriage). She is against the establishment of special tribunals or 'arbitrators' who are, in fact, fundamentalist Muslim leaders who then use their position to enforce conduct on those who are brought before them.

It is discriminatory because it seeks to bar religious people (and Muslims in particular) from equal access to voluntary arbitration, and from working in voluntary arbitration organisations.

Again, nonsense. Voluntary arbitration is no problem. The problem is that, in many cases, this 'arbitration' turns out not to be voluntary at all.

Take the case of a girl whose father disagrees with how she dresses, and in their disagreement, hits her. The case goes to court, and rather than face an 'unfair' environment that doesn't understand their culture, they decide to go to arbitration in front of one of these Muslim arbitrators. The girl says she does so voluntarily...but actually, behind the scenes, is forced into it by her family.

What will the difference be?

In the former case, the judge will hold that the father's actions were absolutely illegal; there will be a greater tendency to give a stronger judgment against the father, in order to prevent such abuse in future; and the girl will not face significant criticism for her actions.

In the latter case, the 'arbitrator' will inform the girl in no uncertain terms of all the points of sharia law that dictate that A) she must not dress that way, and B) her father has the right to discipline her. The negative pressure on her -- making her the criminal, as opposed to her father -- will be significant. The arbitrator then rules that, since they are in Britain, the father's actions were illegal, and that legally he has no right to beat his daughter. And proposes a 'reasonable' solution under which the father agrees not to hit his daughter again (but no punishment), and the daughter agrees to dress more appropriately. Since the daughter 'agrees' to it voluntarily (but actually as a result of strong religious/social pressure), no British law has been broken.

This is no manner, shape, or form represents equality; and the issue of special arbitration tribunals or 'arbitrators' for distinct religious communities is one that, in fact, needs to be considered very carefully. Where two individuals truly agree of their own free will to submit themselves to the decisions of such an arbitrator, I agree that they should have the right to do so. I think that Maryam would, also.

But when it becomes a tool for using religious and social pressure to enforce behaviors based on religious beliefs, then there's a big problem. As mentioned in my example above, it also can give those who break the law the opportunity to avoid punishment for doing so. A Muslim who breaks the law, but then manages to get it put in 'arbitration' instead of having to face a British court, will have a significantly lesser chance of getting any sort of meaningful punishment to make them stop such behavior in future.

 

[Wolfman]

Wolfman, I'm surprised to see you supporting this given your previously expressed views on religious freedom. I have to assume that you don't understand this campaign (based on your support for it and on your comment about not understanding religious "courts" such as the Jewish Beth Din in the UK legal system.

I stated that I'm not sure of how the Jewish thing works in the UK; in Canada, there have been efforts to set up similar 'tribunals', with which I am very familiar.

I will draw a large distinction between the two forms these tend to take.

The first type, with which I mostly agree, are focused more on reconciliation. For example, the native peoples have special tribunals whereby, if a victim to a crime agrees, the guilty individual must face them and the community, give apologies, and significant social pressure comes to bear on that person to change their behavior. (For example, a drunken man beats his wife and children; when put in front of the community, forced to listen to how his abuse has affected others, and told by the community that he must change, there can be a significant social pressure to cease such behavior). An important point here is that this is done only after the person has already faced a Canadian court, and the case has been resolved legally. In some cases, the punishment that the court would have normally given will be replaced with a punishment decided upon by the community (although the court must agree to it, also).

The second type, instead of being a follow-up to legal action, seeks to replace legal action. This is what extreme Muslims in Ontario were fighting for -- and Maryam, as I mentioned, was key in helping to defeat that. The argument for these is that Canadian judges/courts may not understand the cultural/religious factors in the actions of a Muslim, and in order to be 'sensitive' and 'fair', they should have the right to voluntarily submit themselves to the judgment of their 'peers' (ie. those of Muslim faith), rather than Canadian courts.

In cases where the police lay charges, this doesn't have much impact...it is the state bringing charges, and the state is unlikely to agree to arbitration from a Muslim group.

But in cases where it is one person bringing charges against another, it becomes far more problematic. If such 'arbitration' is given legal recognition/sanction, then people who live in Muslim communities will face huge social pressure to subject themselves to 'arbitration', rather than to go through the regular courts. And, as I argued above, the 'equal' application or implementation of the law then becomes far, far less likely.

It is difficult, I agree, to determine exactly where to draw the line. As you argued, if two people truly agree to independent arbitration by a religious leader, and if such arbitration breaks no laws, then they should have the right to do so. But in most cases -- particularly for women and children living in Muslim communities -- the odds that they will be forced into such arbitration are just too high...and we should be doing our best to oppose and prevent such loopholes, not to support them.

ETA: I'm going to send an email to Maryam, and ask if she might be willing to come and explain her position -- she can do so far more effectively than I ever could. And I do worry that I may end up misrepresenting some of her personal beliefs or principles.

 

[Wolfman]

I've now read up on Beth Din in the UK, and at least understand it a little better. So let me make some arguments that I'm sure Brodski will not entirely agree with...and then we can go from there

First, Beth Din applies only to civil cases, not criminal cases; and both parties must be Jewish. Beth Din serves as an arbitrator, and their decisions are binding (as long as they don't break British law).

I have no problem with this in principle; the area where I have a problem is that, particularly in more conservative/fundamentalist religious communities, there's a strong possibility that some people are forced/manipulated into accepting such arbitration. They will say that they are entering it voluntarily; but are actually forced into it.

In addition, the fact that the arbitrator can't make rulings that don't break the law doesn't mean that the arbitrator must enforce the law. A man who might face punishment in front of a British judge will escape punishment in front of a religious 'arbitrator' (or get a much-reduced punishment), because that arbitrator feels that the action was supported under their religious beliefs/laws. Thus the disincentive to engage in such behavior in future is greatly reduced.

In no way can this be called 'equality', if such an offender can escape punishment that non-Jews would not be able to escape.

Now, within the Jewish community, there may not be as much opportunity to use social/religious pressure to force someone to submit to such 'arbitration'. But in the more conservative/fundamentalist Muslim communities, there certainly is.

So, this raises the question -- if one is going to disallow such tribunals/arbitrators for Muslims, because of the strong potential for abuse, does that not mean that one must disallow it for all religions? Or do we argue for an even more unequal system where it is allowed for some religions, and not for others?

Putting everything in the balance...I still side strongly with Maryam. The potential for abuse is too high. I do not see anyone being significantly hurt by not being allowed to seek religious arbitration, so long as their cases are handled equitably within the existing legal system. The 'right' of people to seek private arbitration is an important one...but not as important, in my opinion, as the right of people not to be forced to submit themselves through the use of religious pressure.

Nor should there be a two-tiered justice system where those of particular religions can escape punishment that others must face, simply because they can appeal to a religious arbitrator who will treat them more leniently.

If a way can be found to allow such arbitration while ensuring that such abuses do not take place (ie. very strict monitoring of all such procedings, pre-and-post interviews with those involved to try to spot coercement, and mandatory punishments that must be enforced the same as they would in a regular court), I would go for it. But so long as there exists such strong potential for such abuses, I'd be in favor of removing this as an option altogether.

 

[gtc]

There is no credible movement whatsoever to establish religious law in the UK (the rest of my comments will apply specificity to the English and Welsh legal system- I'm not as familiar with Scottish law)

You already have religious law established in the UK (at least the English part) considering that the Church of England is the established Church and the act of Settlement still means the Queen is the head of C of E and prevents Catholics from becoming Monarch.

Many many different types of arbitration tribunal exist, some such as Beth Din or Sharia "courts" have a religious focus- but nobody is forced to use these courts, and they are subject to review by the state (de facto secular) courts.

You obviously don't understand the religious and social pressure that exists in some religious communities.

In order to remove the influence of religious law in England and Wales you would have to outlaw these bodies, you would have to make it illegal to include religiously motivated clauses in contracts and you would have to prevent anyone with any religious views at all from working in arbitration.

That is rubbish.


You had a good point that allowing for religious based arbitration is not the same as establishing seperate laws for different faiths. However, you ruined it with your hyperbole and factual errors.

 

[brodski]

I've not had much time recently to get into detailed posts on the forum, but here is something, which I wrote off line and e-mailed to myself, trying to clarify the reality of the situation in the UK and my position (Wolfman begged me ) , it won't deal with every comment on my posts in this thread, just flesh out my position.


first and foremost these tribunals have nothing whatsoever to do with criminal law, they cannot deal with criminal matters, they cannot decide guilt or innocence and they cannot enforce their decisions- the produce contracts which are enforceable by the English and Welsh courts just like every other contract- provided that the do not violate the law.
They operate (in a legal sense) in exactly the same way as the Jewish courts which operate in England and Wales. The conflation of these tribunals with criminal law is one of my complaints about the dishonesty of how this campaign is being run.


OK, so if you wished to abolish these tribunals what would you have to do?



Firstly you would need a law banning explicitly religious organisations from advising on the content of contracts (which is all these tribunals really do).



You would then need legislation to ensure that people who advise what should be in contracts do not do so based on religious beliefs- because if you don’t then you’ve just re-invented the religious arbitration tribunal, or you lay out a rigid and comprehensive set of rules about how people who advise on what should be in contracts should come to their decision- rules which explicitly exclude any consideration of religion. In which case you’ve just re-invented the civil courts.



You then need to ensure that people who decide to enter into contracts are not religiously motivated in the contracts which they decide to have drawn up. If religious or religious motivated clauses are in the contract, then the outcome will be the same as if the parties had agreed to binding arbitration at a religiously based arbitration tribunal.



If we are to believe that (all? most?) Muslim women in the UK are so unaware of their rights and so susceptible to social pressure that they would agree to contracts suggested by a religious arbitration tribunal, should we not also assume that they are so unaware of their rights and so susceptible to social pressure that they would also agree to religiously motivated contracts which have not been directly drawn up by a formal arbitration tribunal?

 

[Wolfman]

first and foremost these tribunals have nothing whatsoever to do with criminal law, they cannot deal with criminal matters, they cannot decide guilt or innocence and they cannot enforce their decisions- the produce contracts which are enforceable by the English and Welsh courts just like every other contract- provided that the do not violate the law.
They operate (in a legal sense) in exactly the same way as the Jewish courts which operate in England and Wales. The conflation of these tribunals with criminal law is one of my complaints about the dishonesty of how this campaign is being run.

Two problems here. First, you haven't demonstrated that having Jewish (religious) courts is a good thing; you apparently assume that since they exist, they are therefore good. Second, I clarified above that they do not deal with criminal law, but rather with civil law; nor do I find anywhere on Maryam's site that refers to criminal law. If you can point me towards such claims, and validate your claim here, please do so.

Firstly you would need a law banning explicitly religious organisations from advising on the content of contracts (which is all these tribunals really do).

Wrong. These tribunals deal with civil law cases. If someone has wronged me, and I seek restitution, then instead of going to a regular court, I can go to one of these religious tribunals instead. If you want to claim that the resultant resolution is "just a contract", then the result of any civil court ruling is likewise "just a contract". Which makes no sense whatsoever to me. And the rulings of these tribunals are binding.

So, as in my example above, a Muslim woman who has been abused by her husband/father wants to seek restitution. Will she get the same "justice" in front of a Muslim tribunal (which considers that her husband/father has the right to hit her, and that her behavior violated the Koran) that she would in a civil court? And is the ruling that the Muslim tribunal comes up with "just a contract?

I'd say a resounding "NO" to both questions.

You would then need legislation to ensure that people who advise what should be in contracts do not do so based on religious beliefs- because if you don’t then you’ve just re-invented the religious arbitration tribunal, or you lay out a rigid and comprehensive set of rules about how people who advise on what should be in contracts should come to their decision- rules which explicitly exclude any consideration of religion. In which case you’ve just re-invented the civil courts.

Actually, I'd say that if a judge in a British civil court ruled that a man should not be punished because he was just following the teachings of the Koran, or that a woman who has been abused deserves minimal or no restitution because she broke the rules of the Koran, then there would indeed be a real problem within the system, and that there should in fact be laws to prevent such rulings. Whether it be a British civil court, or a Muslim tribunal, or any other religious entity.

You then need to ensure that people who decide to enter into contracts are not religiously motivated in the contracts which they decide to have drawn up. If religious or religious motivated clauses are in the contract, then the outcome will be the same as if the parties had agreed to binding arbitration at a religiously based arbitration tribunal.

Again, we are not talking about drawing up contracts here. You're using a very large straw horse here, arguing that this is just about "drawing up contracts", and then demonstrating that it is wrong to not allow religious arbitrators in making contracts.

Many of the rulings of such tribunals have nothing to do with "drawing up contracts"; they have to do with resolution of disputes regarding matters of civil law. And it isn't an issue of "mutual agreement" to the resolution...it is a matter that at least one party is legally bound by the arbitrator's decision, regardless of whether they agree with it or not. In no manner, shape, or form should that be conflated or confused with "drawing up a contract".

If we are to believe that (all? most?) Muslim women in the UK are so unaware of their rights and so susceptible to social pressure that they would agree to contracts suggested by a religious arbitration tribunal, should we not also assume that they are so unaware of their rights and so susceptible to social pressure that they would also agree to religiously motivated contracts which have not been directly drawn up by a formal arbitration tribunal?

Actually, a lot of Muslim women are intimidated by religious leaders and beliefs into not pursuing their rights under British law. And you now support setting up tribunals that will simply provide those religious leaders with further tools to continue repressing these women...but rather than it being illegal, done behind closed doors, now you want to fully legitimize it, giving them a legal status to continue such intimidation in the name of their religious beliefs.

Also, you have failed entirely to address my point about unequal justice. Is it in any way defensible to have a two-tiered system in which a Muslim man accused of abusing a woman can get a more lenient sentence by appealing to a Muslim tribunal, while I (a non-Muslim) would have to subject myself to a British civil court that would treat me more harshly? (and please note that such a case can very well be a valid case for civil court...the authorities may rule that there's not enough evidence to get a conviction in criminal court, but since the standard of proof in civil courts is lower, the victim can still seek restitution there...as was done most notably in the OJ Simpson trial)