Sharia in the UK

According to a Times article yesterday:

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

On the one hand, I'm all for alternative dispute resolution - I guess. On the other hand, this really creeps me out. As a woman, I have to say, sharia pretty much sucks for us.

The courts have been established through rules on arbitration, so it's basically binding arbitration, but all parties must agree to it before entering the court. Then the ruling becomes enforceable. This keeps people from venue shopping and dragging things out indefinitely. If you go to a sharia court over a contested will, the male sibling will receive twice as much as the female sibling. I know that and so would any Muslim litigant. I wouldn't go to a sharia court to settle an inheritance dispute (sorry Vol Bro), but I do know a Muslim woman who probably would have and all she wanted was what sharia "entitled" her to when her brother wanted to take a lot more than his already larger share. In most senses, I really don't have a problem with this.

But these courts are deciding all kinds of matters including charges of domestic violence. Ummm, yeah - the victim and the perpetrator are on equal footing there, aren't they? It turns out that in the domestic violence cases the men have been ordered to undergo anger management courses. How enlightened. And the women have dropped the charges. Fancy that.

Dog bites child

The NHS is reporting a 40% increase in dog bites over the last four years, but in London the number of dog bites has doubled. Children under the age of 9 are the most frequent victims.

According to a BBC story this morning:

Norman Lamb, Liberal Democrat health spokesman, called for more to be done to make people aware of the risks of irresponsible dog ownership.

The Liberal Democrats want to see stricter legal duties laid on dog owners, and control orders to impose conditions on ownership - or in severe cases disqualify irresponsible owners.

Of the attack figures Mr Lamb added: "These are dramatic increases. I think in some communities these dogs have become a badge of honour, a fashion accessory in a way, and I think that's very disturbing."

I've certainly noticed an increase in the number of Staffordshire Bull Terriers (or allied breeds). I see them in parks (we spend a lot of time in parks these days) and on the street. Quite often not on a leash. Quite often accessorised in an intimidating fashion (spiked collars and the like). And quite often in the company of people whom I would not describe as responsible owners.

It scares me to death. They could have Buddy away in an instant and there'd be absolutely nothing I could do about it.

Defenders of the breed say that it's not the animals, it's the owners.

OK. It's the owners. But these are dangerous breeds because they can inflict serious damage. And the owners are brutalising their animals. I've witnessed it myself and I've seen the evidence in public parks.

Some owners seem appalled at the notion that their precious pups could be used to maim:

A lot of people look at them horrified, like you've got Satan himself on the end of your lead," says Marian Waller of Dulwich, south London, owner of a Staffordshire bull terrier named Teddy. "They look at you like you're taking the Hound of the Baskervilles for a walk." She adds, "They'll cross the road to get away. I don't know why, because they're great with people. (The Independent, July 2006)

Yep. I'm one of those people. Because Ms Waller, I just don't know if you're one of those people who encourages a happy friendly pup or if you've tortured your dog into some kind of killing machine. And even if you look like the next Miss Marple, how do I know that you're not looking after the dog for your teenaged, hoodlum grandson and the dog is much, much more than you can handle. And frankly, there's no way I can know.

We know that these dogs were bred to fight and to maim and to kill. And yes, in the right hands and in the right circumstances I'm sure they can be wonderful dogs. But many of the breed are ending up in the wrong hands:

Typical new breed of owner: young lad, aged 15-22. Typical purpose for having the dog: to gain respect, to intimidate, to use as a form of protection, and sometimes for crime.

And they're certainly ending up in the wrong circumstances. If people were just wanting canine companionship they probably wouldn't opt for a larger, dangerous breed in the crowded conditions of Inner London. For when I talk about seeing these dogs on the streets, I'm talking about the congested sidewalks of the local town centres of London. People naturally brush against each other, old people, babies and toddlers in strollers, the noise of traffic, and increasingly other dogs. (Even fans of the breed acknowledge that the males are prone to fight each other).

My council, Wandsworth, is taking action on dangerous dogs and irresponsible owners, but frankly it couldn't happen soon enough.

Wandsworth Council's leader, Edward Lister, is also calling for a new licensing system - including a minimum age for keeping a dog - to deal with the problem of irresponsible ownership.

The new licences would require stringent tests preventing those deemed unsuitable from owning a dog. We need sharper powers if we are to tackle this problem proactively."

Coun Lister added: "A risk-based approach to dog ownership would identify those animals for which a licence would be necessary. It could include, for example, all types of bull terrier - going beyond the very narrow list covered by the Dangerous Dog Act.

"Crucially it would also look at who was owning and controlling the dog. In our experience in Wandsworth most of the problems are with animals owned by young people aged 13-17.

"There should be a minimum age for ownership. You could add a fit and proper person test which would weed out many other unsuitable types. The critics might say this would be as unworkable as the current legislation or as irrelevant as the old licence system. That would be giving up before we've started.

Dog defenders are quick to blame irresponsible owners. If that's really the problem, then licensing seems like an ideal solution. If the dogs are inherently dangerous, then they just don't belong in crowded urban environments.

The Very Reverend Vol Abroad

Did you know that you can get ordained, for free, online?

Well, you can.

And the ACLU is defending your rights as a free, online, ordained minister (what you haven't already gotten ordained? - didn't you follow the link?) to conduct weddings in Pennsylvania.

(And no, I didn't get ordained yet - I'll let you know.)

Who's the daddy?

Yes, I've blogged about my love for paternity testing tv shows before.

Deadbeat punk, you ARE the father.

I know it's trashy. I know it's low class. I know it's wrong even to be entertained by the obvious misery and personal train-wrecks of these "guests". But I can't help it.

And now, apparently, my home state is trying to get in on the act. But instead of being piped into your living rooms, the touching DNA scene will take place at the side of every post-partum bed in the state. Or it will if SB3717HB2964 goes through. According to the Archcrone:

Basically, this bill provides that each child born in the state of
Tennessee will be tested for paternity before the father’s name can be placed on
the birth certificate. The state will take up the cost of paternity testing when
parent’s are unable to afford the test. Oh, and married couples are not
excluded, making the overt presumption that women are “unfaithful.”

The only thing better would be camera crews roving through the hospital waiting to capture the special moment of revelation. Blecchhhh.... (Though I hate to admit, I'd probably watch.)

(In an interesting side note, this seems like the ideal way to collect a nifty database which would eventually hold the DNA of all citizens.)

-0-

I think it's an interesting touch that the state will pick up the cost of testing for the low income. Ironic, even, considering rape victims were being charged for the cost of their rape kits. I was reminded of this by an email I got to my Vol Abroad account.

A young woman emailed to thank me for blogging about the outrage of women having to pay for their own rape kits in the state of Tennessee. She'd been raped. She reported the rape. She agreed to the rape kit, necessary for collecting evidence - and then she'd been charged for it. For whatever reason, probably stunned by disbelief, she didn't pay and now she's received a summons from the hospital that administered it. Sick. Sick. Sick.

When I was mugged on the streets of Knoxville, I got probably two or three hours worth of police time spent on my case that I was aware of - including at least a half hour with a detective. Given salaries and overheads, that wasn't without cost. I never got a bill. That one was on the good citizens of Knoxville.

When our house was broken into here in London, the Met sent round some forensics blokes. They dusted for fingerprints - which led to a conviction. We also spent about an hour talking to a detective, plus whatever time was spent by uniformed police. We never got a bill.

It's bad enough that victims of crime are left out of pocket for their medical treatment. And if they're uninsured, they're robbed twice. A rape kit, as far as I know, isn't for the medical benefit of the victim. It's used to collect evidence. That is purely and simply the responsibility of the state in its role of prosecuting public crimes, for the safety and protection of the public.

Now, thankfully, victims of rape can claim back the costs of their rape kits, according to the Nashville Women's Political Caucus:

Victim’s Rights – Payment of Forensic Sexual Assault Examinations – Worked
successfully to pass legislation that authorizes payment of costs for
forensic sexual assault examinations (for the purpose of gathering evidence of
sexual assault) from the Victim’s Compensation Fund for sexual assault victims
and establishes a “Sexual Assault Examination Fund” to reimburs victims for
these expenses that are not compensable under the victim’s compensation
fund.

But that's just not good enough. That means that the victim has to wade through one and perhaps two compensation schemes with the paperwork and the triplicate and the requesting of forms. Talk about adding insult to injury. The only reasonable approach is that the state has to pick up the tab in the first place as part of normal police work.

If I were one of those angry, radical feminists - I might say the link between these two stories is the presumption that all women are whores. Sluts who lie about sleeping around in order to screw some poor guy in the first case or some poor guy and the taxpayer in the second by reporting a rape. She must be a lying hoor, so why should the state pay? But in the case of paternity testing, she must be a lying hoor - so why should the poor, cuckolded schmuck have to pay?

Sharia in the UK?

The Arch-freakin'-Bishop of Canterbury* is saying that sharia law in the UK is inevitable? Holy-effin'-moly! Where's your convictions man? I'm nearly (but not quite) struck speechless.

In one breath the Archbishop says

Nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that has sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states: the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women,”

Well, yes, I would certainly agree with that. But then he goes on to say:

“But there are ways of looking at marital disputes, for example, which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them.”

Arrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Sorry I couldn't come up with something more eloquent, but I did say I was nearly struck dumb with the stupidity of it all.)

Doesn't he get it? Doesn't he understand? Enforcing sharia based decisions in matters of family law - and especially in matters of divorce - is exactly what underlines the barbaric attitudes to women.

There's nothing to stop two parties coming to an agreement based on sharia and abiding by it under current UK law. Women - in case of separation, do you want to hand over custody of your children? Do you want to have a "mosque-based" marriage in which you have no rights when it comes to property? Hey, fine by me. Do what you want.

But no way, no how should British courts be enforcing such decisions or routing women of Muslim origin into sharia based civil court hearings. That's what a tandem system of sharia law for Muslims would mean.

It's wrong.

Equality before the law. One law for everyone. We may not always get it, but we must always , always aspire to it.


_________
*head honcho bishop in the Church of England


UPDATE: At Harry's Place, just as one would have expected there's a discussion about this. They call for the sacking of the Archbishop and the disestablishment of the Church of England. No need. When the head of the CoE calls for sharia law - the church done been disestablished.

the lights are going out all over Europe

When I quit smoking last autumn, I promised myself a last smoke in June. See at the end of this month, it's the end of indoor smoking in England. I thought I'd have about a six week old baby and that I would be pretty much fighting fit again after my lovely tranquil home birth. Not so much. I thought I could sneak off to the pub - swish down a cheeky half and smoke one lovely, last Marlboro Red in salute to the end of public smoking, as we knew it, in England.

I want that last smoke.

But I'm still feeling under the weather. I'm nearly as bad as I was in the days after my release from the hospital. Though better than I was at the weekend. I managed to walk to the drugstore today - accompanied by the Vol-in-Law. And you know, the drugstore is just about the same distance as to my local pub.

how to hack off two major interest groups

If there's one thing that the Brits like, it's animals. Especially cute fluffy animals, but all animals really. They take animal cruelty seriously. In fact, only recently, tough new laws on animal care have come into force. And since the rather heavy handed Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) will be the ones knocking down my door if its revealed that I don't take good enough care of my cats, this actually strikes a little fear in my heart. It's not enough just not to beat the critters, you've got to provide a good standard of care now if you take on animal ownership.

There's another charity, too. Not nearly as popular, but still well known - the NSPCC - the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. They can't take your kids away, fine you or put you in jail (like the RSPCA) but they can rat on you to social services, who can. The NSPCC is famous for adds that tug at the old heart strings - like a sad-eyed, quiet toddler and a voice-over "Mikey is quiet because he's learned that nobody comes when he cries." (Hmm - is there a book with tips?) Or ads that try to encourage parents to stop and think about their behaviour before it becomes abuse. Although, one of their campaigns last summer featured a 10 year old boy, repeatedly kicking a ball against a holiday caravan (vacation trailer home - yeah, I know, Brits like the strangest things) and the mum, who is washing up inside while dad reads the paper - and then finally she goes out there and yells at kid. Oh no!!! She yells at him. But she looks lower class and her voice is shrill and quite angry, so it must be verbal abuse. (If you ask me, the little blighter had it coming.)

Anyway, with this photo (an update to this post about baby sweaters) I'm courting disapproval from both lobbies.


Other Cat has learned that nobody comes when she meows.

And yes, I will put that sweater on baby Cletus.

A spouse is for life

The law of the land...marriage is between one man and one woman. I saw this in the Merton Registrar's office. I guess this is part of the reason that civil partnerships were set up for homosexual couples, I suppose it was just too hard to mess with the statute law.

Presumably in the very same room where this sign is so prominently posted civil partnership ceremonies take place.

I've said it before. I'm in favour of gay marriage. I disapprove of civil partnerships as I think they're a squishy compromise that undermines the institution of marriage by encouraging chatterati heterosexual "partners" to create a committment contract-lite. I simply do not understand why people with kids and mortgages are still shy of the registrar.