Judge allowed to sit on sharia court set up by Hebdo protest cleric

UK Jewish Orthodox councils 'institutionalising marital captivity and upholding discriminatory religious laws'

Orthodox councils should be subject to scrutiny alongside sharia courts, says academic

Jewish Orthodox councils in the UK are “institutionalising marital captivity and upholding discriminatory religious laws” that victimise women and secular alternatives need to be introduced by politicians, according to an academic study being launched in Parliament.
New laws should be enacted in Westminster to give women of all faiths equal access to end their marriages, said the researcher Machteld Zee, ahead of releasing a book regarded as perhaps the most comprehensive analysis of religious courts in the UK.
The study by Ms Zee, from Leiden University in the Netherlands, first came to attention last month when The Independent revealed her findings that Muslim sharia courts allegedly set out to frustrate women whose husbands do not want them to leave. Her work has been backed by the crossbench peer Baroness Cox, who is sponsoring a law that could restrict religious courts and calls Ms Zee’s evidence the “tip of the iceberg”.
The academic, whose book will be launched on Tuesday at a House of Lords event chaired by the former High Court judge Baroness Butler-Sloss, said there were striking similarities between sharia courts and Jewish Orthodox Beth Din councils in how they deal with women seeking a “religious divorce”.
According to Jewish law, both spouses must consent to a religious divorce. But it is executed by a writ – the “get” – delivered by the husband, of his own free will, which the wife needs to accept.

According to Jewish law, both spouses must consent to a religious divorce
Without a get, any future offspring of the woman – and nine generations of children – will be “mamzerim”, and would only able to marry another “mamzer”.
Ms Zee said the Jewish councils deserve scrutiny as well as sharia courts, because they contribute to women remaining in “marital captivity”. The academic said that while the rights of faith groups to follow their beliefs were important, some practices are in breach of a UN treaty – the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women – and need to be reformed.
“Jewish law is religious law based on domination over women,” Ms Zee told The Independent. “The point is, with both sharia courts and Jewish courts, women may not decide freely whether they exit a marriage.” She said the UN treaty “is very clear on that”.
Sharia councils and Batei Din operate as bodies under the Arbitration Act 1996, to resolve disputes among community members.
But Ms Zee – the author of Choosing Sharia? Multiculturalism, Islamic Fundamentalism and Sharia Councils – challenges their status as arbitrators. She claims they are not independent and often act for one party rather than as a mediator.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-jewish-orthodox-councils-institutionalising-marital-captivity-and-upholding-discriminatory-a6803256.html

Yeah both are wrong and both should have no place in our society.

Now back to the actual thread, where you tries to deflect Sassy, so you agree then they should have no part in our societies when they conflict with British law?

They should have no part in our society full stop, whether that conflict with british law or no

there is (or should be) ONLY ONE system of law...

Agreed.

Well, the Beth Din courts were established in the early 18th Century, so I think you will find you will have a bit of a problem with that.

not really...

why should they have any preference to islamic courst

just make it quite clear that the ONLY law is british law

and that the use/application of ANY other is illegal and will result in imprisonment for a LONG time for anyone participating in such courts...


just because its been around a long time does NOT provide immunity to change

lets face it...it was untill very recently on the statute books that you could shoot a welshman from the walls of chester with a bow on a sunday....
It was also a requirement to spend sunday afternoon on the village green practicing archery...
etc etc etc......

the fact a law is archaic is no guarantee of rights...especially where such a law is an "exemption"

all it requires is an act of parliament....

Don't disagree that much Vic, but think you are understating the influence of the Jewish lobby.


And no Dodgy Dick, that isn't anti-semetic, it's even in Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_lobby