Family courts can accept sharia law 28/10/2008.
What other country in our world would allow their laws to be tampered with in this manner. Are the British law makers going soft in the head?, particularly when allowing so they believe; only a minuscule of the archaic sharia law to infiltrate the British courts simply in order to appease Muslim communities. This foot in the door trick will no doubt snowball allowing further penetration into British law by these out dated inhuman religious loonies.
Decisions reached according to Islamic law can be accepted by English family courts, it has emerged. How deplorable.
Although sharia law officially has no jurisdiction in England, a ruling passed on a separating couple by a sharia council can be submitted to a formal family court.
There, the principles of the sharia judgment, embodied in a consent order, may be rubber-stamped by a judge.
The situation became clear when Justice minister Bridget Prentice told MPs: "If, in a family dispute dealing with money or children, the parties to a judgment in a sharia council wish to have this recognised by English authorities, they are at liberty to draft a consent order embodying the terms of the agreement and submit it to an English court.
"This allows English judges to scrutinise it to ensure that it complies with English legal tenets.
This will also allow other crazy religious numb skulls to receive equality. I say they should travel to a country able deal with their particular religious dilemmas.
A consent order can deal with the division of money, property, savings and child maintenance, according to the compactlaw.co.uk website.
The court will "rubber-stamp" the order if it decides the agreement reached is fair, and the order will then act as a contract between the couple.
If the court is not happy with the consent order it may ask for more information or for the couple to attend a hearing.
In the written answer to MPs, Ms Prentice stressed: "Any order in a family case is made or approved by a family judge applying English family law."
But Robert Whelan, of the Civitas think tank, said the "Women who live in some communities may have no option but to go to the sharia court. The case is then rubber-stamped by a family court without any of us knowing how the decision was reached." Obviously the think tank had a few tankards before they made their decision.
I recall in the early nineties; when the management of a large shopping complex in the Sydney western suburbs informed the public that, on advice from several shoppers in the community, the Christmas Nativity scene will not be allowed from now on, in order not to offend the non Christian community. After leading a group of people to the management to stir the can and put them in the picture, the decision was overturned, and rightly so. Had the boot been on the other foot; say in Mecca, Well! one could imagine the mayhem.