Women's Views on News |
| Posted: 13 Jul 2016 08:14 AM PDT
An independent review into the application of Sharia Law in England and Wales launched by then Home Secretary Theresa May earlier this year is facing criticism from women's rights groups. The review is chaired by Professor Mona Siddiqui, who, according to the UK government, is ‘an internationally renowned expert in Islamic and inter-religious studies appointed OBE for her services to inter-faith relations’. Professor Siddiqui is leading a panel of experts that includes family law barrister Sam Momtaz, retired high court judge Sir Mark Hedley and specialist family law lawyer Anne Marie Hutchinson QC. The panel is being advised by two religious and theological experts – Imam Sayed Ali Abbas Razawi and Imam Qari Asim. They are to 'ensure the panel has a full and thorough understanding of the religious and theological issues relating to specific aspects of Sharia Law, and the way it is applied'. The independent review of the application of Sharia Law is part of the government's Counter-Extremism Strategy. There is, however, evidence that some Sharia councils may be working in a discriminatory and unacceptable way, seeking to legitimise forced marriage and issuing divorces that are unfair to women, contrary to the teachings of Islam. The panel of experts is thus also meant to seek out examples of best practice among Sharia councils. The terms of reference set out the review's intention to explore whether, and to what extent, the application of Sharia law may be incompatible with the law in England and Wales. It is examining the ways in which Sharia may be being misused, or exploited, in a way that may discriminate against certain groups, undermine shared values and cause social harms. After issuing a call for evidence to provide an opportunity for groups and individuals to contribute to the review, the panel is expected to complete its review in 2017. The Home Secretary said at the time: "A number of women have reportedly been victims of what appear to be discriminatory decisions taken by Sharia councils, and that is a significant concern. "There is only one rule of law in our country, which provides rights and security for every citizen," she continued. "Professor Siddiqui, supported by a panel with a strong balance of academic, religious and legal expertise, will help us better understand whether and the extent to which Sharia law is being misused or exploited and make recommendations to the government on how to address this. However an unprecedented number of women’s rights campaigners and organisations from Britain and abroad have submitted a letter raising serious concerns about the government’s ‘independent review’ into Sharia courts in Britain. The letter says that the limited scope of inquiry and its inappropriate theological approach will do nothing to address the discriminatory effect and intent of the courts on private and family matters: areas where, arguably, the greatest human rights violations of minority women in the UK take place. Rather than taking a human rights approach, the government has constituted a panel and terms of reference more suited to a discussion of theology not one which serves the needs of victims whose human rights have been – are being – violated. As far as the signatories are concerned, by making these religious appointments, the government has lost a vital opportunity to examine the discriminatory nature of not only Sharia bodies but all forms of religious arbitration fora including the Batei Din. The panel chair, Mona Siddiqui, for example, is herself a theologian. One of the scholars, Sayed Ali Abbas Razawi, is the joint secretary for Majlis Ulama-e-Shia, which sends delegations to the Islamic Republic of Iran. In his sermons, he has supported the death penalty in Islamic states, advised Muslims to go into government "and change the system" and says women dressed in “tight clothing” are “corrupted”. Another scholar, Qari Muhammad Asim, speaks of “men retain[ing] their wives in marriage” and sees women in relation to their male guardian: “Each women is someone's mother, daughter, sister or wife”. He also trivialises violence against women by saying “women as well as men can be victims of domestic abuse”. Both scholars advising the panel are on Imams Online. Khola Hasan, a judge at the Islamic Sharia Council, is a contributing editor to Imam Online. And clearly, Imams and Islamic scholars cannot investigate themselves. ‘Women and Sharia Law: The Impact of Legal Pluralism in the UK’ by Elham Manea, and published in May 2016, documents the harmful and even life-threatening consequences for vulnerable minority women in matters pertaining to the family. Testimonials gathered by campaigners highlight some of the emotional, mental and physical effects of the courts on women and children. The women's rights campaigners are calling on the Home Secretary to establish a thorough and impartial judge-led human rights investigation, which will fully examine arbitration in family matters and whether violations of human rights are condoned or even promoted by Sharia bodies. Some examples are: women’s testimony being worth half that of a man’s, marital rape, sexual violence and domestic abuse, the age of consent, guardianship, forced marriage, honour based violence, ritual abuse, child custody and child protection, polygamy, divorce, sexuality, inheritance, inter-religious relationships, female dress codes and abortion. Broader issues such as the treatment of religious minorities including minority sects in Islam and decisions pertaining to apostasy and blasphemy must also be examined to understand the full range of threats faced by people affected by religious laws, and indeed, by the State promoting these laws. Five of the major concerns are: 1. The terms of reference of the review; 2. The panel; 3 a) the competencies of Advisers to the panel b) that Imams are not the right advisers c) that Imams/scholars cannot investigate themselves; 4. The issues before the inquiry and 5. The implications for the scope and impartiality of the inquiry. The signatories are calling on the government to: 1. Ensure that the terms of reference are broad enough to have a thorough inquiry into the full range of human rights concerns raised by Sharia councils and tribunals; 2. Appoint a Judge to head the inquiry with the powers to compel witnesses to appear before it. The inquiry panel should be an impartial investigation into the entire spectrum of human rights violations caused by the existence and functioning of Sharia councils and tribunals; and 3. Drop the inappropriate theological approach, and appoint experts with knowledge of women's human rights, those who can properly and independently examine how Sharia systems of arbitration in family matters contravene key human rights principles of equality before the law, duty of care, due diligence and the rule of law. The inquiry must be clearly framed as a human rights investigation not a theological one. The law and not religion is the key basis for securing justice for all citizens, the signatories point out. And the campaigners are urging the government to do the right thing and ensure that the same principles of human rights, equality before the law, duty of care, due diligence and the rule of law are applicable to all British citizens. For more information about this, click here. Asked why, in the current atmosphere of hatred against minorities and foreigners, they are raising this issue, the campaigners said: 'As people from refugee and migrant backgrounds ourselves, we oppose racism and fundamentalism. 'They are both far right movements. 'Both movements promote hatred and inequality. 'We oppose gender apartheid as much as we oppose racial apartheid. Muslim women are the targets of both.'  |
| May vs Leadsom: so much sexism Posted: 13 Jul 2016 07:50 AM PDT
It may be 2016, but the British media still can’t seem to handle the fact that the next Prime Minister is going to be a woman. WVoN decided to pick out a selection of just some of the sexist remarks that were made about Andrea Leadsom and Theresa May while the media and party members were trying to get people thinking in an informed and thoughtful way about a Conservative leadership contest. Sorry, ‘should have been’. The BBC: “May and Leadsom may both be women, but they have quite different views“; Tim Loughton, Conservative MP for East Worthing and Shoreham, and supporter of Andrea Leadsom: “Having balls in a man’s world…these are things you could attribute to Mrs T [Margaret Thatcher] that our girl’s [Andrea Leadsom] got this time”; The Daily Mail: “Has Theresa boobed again? May turns up to Number 10 in unfortunately patterned ‘cleavage’ dress”; Ken Clarke, Conservative MP for Rushcliffe: “Theresa May is a bloody difficult woman”; The i Paper: “Britain’s next PM will be a woman”; Allison Pearson, Telegraph columnist and Leadsom supporter: “Time that a mother took charge”; The Daily Star: “HERE COME THE GIRLS – Next PM WILL be a woman”; Male MP: “It’s time for Mummy!”; The Daily Mail: “WHO’LL BE THE NEW MAGGIE?”; Cabinet Minister: Leadsom has to “prove she can take the heat or get back to the kitchen”. I suppose in some ways we shouldn’t be – and aren’t – particularly surprised at the sexism that has accompanied Leadsom and May’s bids for the leadership of the Conservative Party. But some of the comments that have been made are truly astonishing, particularly in this day and age. Deplorable, really. For a longstanding and respected broadcaster like the BBC to say, on air, that despite the fact that Leadsom and May are of the same gender, they ACTUALLY have different opinions is deeply offensive – and very depressing. As is the idea that because they’re both female Conservatives, they will obviously be Margaret Thatcher II rather than any kind of Prime Minister in their own right, with their own identity and policies. You can be sure that if the final two in the contest had been male MPs, we would not have had headlines exclaiming “Next PM will be a man” – i.e. stating the bloody obvious. Yes, we’ve only had a female Prime Minister once before, but it would be far more constructive, and with the times, to focus on the candidates’ profiles rather than the fact that, shock horror, they are both women. And now May has triumphed, we can, sadly, be sure that this is only the beginning. Brace yourselves for three and a half years of the same sexist drivel. I can just see it now… “May woos MEPs in Brussels with figure-hugging skirt”.  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |