Douglas Murray commends Cox’s ‘sharia’ bill

Douglas Murray on Spectator blogs writes about the recent parliamentary debate introduced by Baroness Cox on her Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill,’ or the bill on ‘shari’ah courts’ as its most commonly understood.

Murray argues that the government ‘[has] kick[ed] the Sharia debate into the long grass,’ writing:

“Beneath its title (‘The Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill’) lies a debate which heads straight at one of the most important issues of our time: whether this country will make a stand on the principle of ‘one law for all’ or whether competing  laws will be allowed to operate unchallenged by a timid government and weak legal system.”

He cites at length Baroness Cox’s opening remarks:

“Awareness of the need for the Bill arose from mounting evidence of serious problems affecting some women in this country from the application of Sharia law. I immediately reassure your Lordships that I am not anti-Muslim. Indeed, I am deeply concerned that Muslim women enjoy their full legal and civil rights under the law of this land. If women from other faiths experience comparable problems of systematic discrimination, the provisions of this Bill would also be available for them as it does not name any religion.

“The problems I will highlight often arise because many women believe that Sharia courts are real courts and do not know that they have other rights under English law or they are pressured by their family or community not to seek those rights outside their community.”

Murray goes on to cite and commend the interjections of Lord Carlile, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation in the UK, and Lord Kalms. He lambasts Lord Gardiner, who in the debate stated that, “the Government are fully committed to protecting the rights of all citizens, and there is legislation in place to uphold those rights. What I said earlier is that the Government are actively working with groups to ensure that there is awareness and a change of attitude.”

Murray concludes that “the official line of the government remains that there is no need for a clarification or amendment of the arbitration act. The government’s line continues to be that there is nothing to see here, and please could everybody look away and move on. It is the view of a number of people who have recently been in the cabinet, and some who remain there.

“Thank goodness for Baroness Cox, that she and a range of other peers remain committed to highlighting issues which Parliament must address but all too rarely does address. If there were more people like Baroness Cox in the House and fewer Gardiners, Parliament might recover some of the esteem among the general public which it so conspicuously currently lacks.”

Murray’s comments and praise for Cox are telling of his lack of understanding of the scope of arbitration and mediation services both within and outside the Muslim community. The idea, for example, that Cox is concerned for women in all communities and is not targeting shari’ah councils specifically is dubious given that her argument focuses around – in her own careless language – ‘sharia courts’ (which are not in fact courts at all), and by the fact that she virtually ignores in her comments in support of the bill the presence of such mediation councils in other religious communities. Both Lord Gardiner and Lord Kalms for example made references to Jewish Beth Din arbitration services, with Lord Kalms stating that “It is not possible, for instance, for a Jewish court to adjudicate any arbitration case in such a fashion that the judgment runs contrary to the law of the land… the Beth Din are highly regulated by central regulating bodies.”

Moreover, Murray’s support for the bill on the basis that shari’ah councils contradict the principle of the supremacy of English law is, as we have previously noted, already and clearly established. The then Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, stated in relation to the 1996 Arbitration Act, that “There is nothing whatever in English law that prevents people abiding by Sharia principles if they wish to, provided they do not come into conflict with English law… English law will always remain supreme, and religious councils subservient to it.”

Murray’s disdain for the purported view of the government, that there is ‘nothing to see here’ is perhaps to be expected given his former Centre’s dedication to scaremongering about Islam and Muslims in the UK, as well as his own bigoted views on Muslims, such as that “All immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop”, and that “Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board”, though Murray now states that his argument was ‘poorly expressed’ his opinions have ‘altered significantly’.