Tag Archives: QUESTION

MP Kris Hopkins Says Answers Needed About “distrust raised by call for sharia law”

Keighley MP Kris Hopkins once again prepared to tackle the taboo like subject of Sharia head on. 1 of the very few to speak his mind on issues about Islam regardless about what the do gooders may think. Just a shame more MPs cant be like him

Kris Hopkins: We need answers to the doubts and distrust raised by call for sharia law

Published on 08/05/2013 10:31

WE have the privilege of living in a free society, in which the rights of the individual are not determined by their gender.

We live in an open, tolerant country, which rightly welcomes people’s different faiths and religious beliefs and is diverse 
and benefits socially, economically and culturally from that diversity.

Many individuals have campaigned, fought and given their lives for the freedom and values that make up the United Kingdom.

This is a special place, embracing democracy, free speech and, just as important, a justice system that has evolved over a millennium.

One of the cornerstones of 
our justice system is that we 
are all equal in the eyes of the 
law. Embodied in the law of 
our country are the demands for equality, the challenge to 
the wrongs that appear in prejudice and discrimination in our lives.

We can be proud – but we should not be complacent – that the vast majority of our judges, magistrates and clerks come from all backgrounds and are of both genders.

When I read that my local council of mosques had issued a press release calling for the Government to recognise 
sharia councils – they are 
courts in any other country – and ensure that they are better resourced, I was greatly concerned.

Exploring this issue, I find that most of the debate that reaches the public comes from far Right blogs and racist rhetoric. Little thoughtful contribution to understanding or exploring these issues comes to the fore.

There are a couple of notable exceptions: the work of Baroness Cox and the work of the BBC’s Panorama programme, led by the journalist Jane Corbin.

Baroness Cox’s exceptional 
work in the House of Lords 
seeks to ensure that sharia tribunals and councils operate within the law and should not form a concurrent legal system in the UK. With that aim in mind, I have four questions for the Government.

First, I should like to hear from the Government that we have only one law in this country.

Secondly, I want to hear that sharia councils must comply with UK law. That includes compliance with all equality and anti-discrimination laws and family law.

Thirdly, I should like to understand how the Government will ensure compliance and 
what penalties will be applied 
to a council or court if it breaks the law.

Fourthly, I should like to know what consideration the Government has given to ensuring that all sharia marriages are legally underpinned by a compulsory civil marriage.

In the recent Panorama programme, it was evident that women were not being treated equally.

In the so-called arbitration process, even a simple issue of cost was clearly discriminatory. Women pay £400 to get a divorce; men pay nothing. Women are encouraged not to report to the police. A woman was given a divorce only after she agreed to hand over her children to the husband. The council or court was only ever made up of men or a man.

I understand that the act of determining child access or contact cannot be undertaken in law by a sharia council or court.

I hope that, if evidence of wrongdoing can be established, those who have broken the law, as shown in the programme, will be pursued.

On seeing the programme’s evidence, the chief crown prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service in the North West said that he was disappointed, but not surprised. If the CPS is not surprised about such findings, why are we, as a Government, allowing such things to happen?

The director of Inspire, an organisation with an impeccable reputation, issued a statement: “Panorama’s programme on 
the unregulated and discriminatory practice of some of Britain’s sharia councils has been of long concern to Inspire.

“Secrets of Britain’s Sharia Councils highlighted how some of the services provided by sharia councils, in particular arbitration and mediation services, operate in a way that is at times discriminatory towards women, undermining their human rights which should be protected by British law, especially with regards to child custody and domestic violence cases.”

That is part of a long, detailed release that is a thoughtful contribution to the debate. That paragraph in particular highlights problems that I am concerned about as well.

I want to discuss underpinning religious marriage with civil law marriage. Some men are choosing not to marry through the civil law process, because it makes divorce simpler and does not enable a woman rightly to claim her share of the assets at the time of divorce.

There is also an opportunity for men to marry a second wife, because the first sharia marriage is not recognised in law.

We have to ensure that the rights of women are protected. I therefore concur with Inspire’s call that all sharia marriages be simultaneously registered as civil marriages, thus offering much-needed protection to women.

I believe that, sadly, the word ‘sharia’ has more negative connotations than positive images in our country. Only by exploring why will we begin to address those concerns.

Unlike the far Right, I do not believe that Islam is evil. We should not underestimate the level of distrust and sometimes fear that exists.

It is our responsibility to challenge the wrongdoing and allay those fears

Source

Muslim woman plays the victim and starts legal proceedings against interrogation at airport

A Muslim woman who was stopped and questioned at the airport under anti terrorism law has started legal proceedings claiming that her human rights were violated. The Muslim woman was prosecuted after she refused to cooperate with the police and wouldn’t  answer their questions regarding the reasons for her visit to France. Now she is playing the victim in the whole thing like Muslims so often do despite pleading guilty to the charge of wilfully failing to comply with her duty under Schedule 7 to answer questions.  

Sylvie Beghal claims that being asked questions without a lawyer present under Schedule 7 violated the right to liberty (Article 5), right to a fair trial (Article 6) and Ms Beghal’s right to protection for her private and family life (Article 8). Under Schedule 7 anti terrorism laws a lawyer would not of been able to advise his client during questioning anyway and she had a legal duty to answer. Ultimately it was the woman’s stubbornness being awkward refusing to answer that resulted in her arrest .Now she is acting hard done to and putting  the whole schedule 7 laws at risk challenging the legality of an essential weapon in fighting terrorism.

If a person had nothing to hide then why would they object to a few questions if it helped keep our nation safe from terrorist attack. The only people who have anything to gain from those laws getting scrapped would be the Muslim terrorists who hate this country so much they want to slay as many innocent men, women and children as possible.

MUSLIMS TERROR RISK AT AIRPORT

Muslim woman in legal challenge to interrogation at airport

2:27pm Thursday 21st March 2013 in News

A Muslim woman is seeking a legal declaration that her human rights were violated when she was prosecuted after refusing to submit to an interrogation under anti-terrorism laws at an airport.

Mother-of-three Sylvie Beghal was stopped and questioned, even though she was not “suspected” of being a terrorist.

Police officers said they needed to speak to her regarding her “possible involvement” in acts of terrorism.

In what is believed to be the first legal challenge of its kind, Mrs Beghal’s lawyers argued this week at London’s High Court heard.that the entire process of stopping and questioning people “without reasonable suspicion” breaches the European Convention on Human Rights.

They said it was significant that Mrs Beghal had no right of access to a lawyer while being questioned and was being put under direct compulsion to provide information.

The court heard she indicated she would answer questions after the arrival of her lawyer, but the police chose not to wait.

When her lawyer arrived after her questioning had finished, the officers did not seek to ask her any more questions in the lawyer’s presence, three judges were told.

Mrs Beghal, a French national living in the UK, arrived back at East Midlands Airport with her children on January 4, 2011 following a visit to Paris but was not formally detained or arrested.

She was stopped at the UK Border Agency desk but refused to co-operate with questioning by Leicestershire police officers acting under powers given by schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT).

Mrs Beghal asked to consult with a lawyer and for an opportunity to pray.

After being given time to pray, police officers told her she could telephone her lawyer after she was searched. The prosecution initially accused her of physically resisting the search.

At 9.30pm she was taken to a room for an examination under Schedule 7 and asked to provide reasons for her journey, where she stayed in Paris, whom she had met or visited and how her travel was funded.

She was also asked whether she had a criminal record and about her knowledge of the French-Algerian community in Leicestershire, her use of vehicles, the languages she spoke and her current and past employment.

She failed to provide answers to most of the questions, indicating she would only answer questions after her lawyer arrived.

She was subsequently charged with wilfully obstructing a search, assaulting a constable and wilfully failing to comply with her duty under Schedule 7 to answer questions.

The first two charges were eventually dismissed in December 2011 after the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence and Mrs Beghal pleaded guilty to the third charge.

She did so after District Judge Temperley, sitting at Leicester Magistrates’ Court, refused her request to stay the charge as an abuse of process, and the case was referred to the High Court.

Ms Beghal’s counsel Matthew Ryder asked three senior judges – Lord Justice Gross, Mrs Justice Swift and Mr Justice Foskett – to rule Schedule 7 “incompatible” with the human rights convention.

Mr Ryder argued Schedule 7 violated the right to liberty (Article 5), right to a fair trial (Article 6) and Ms Beghal’s right to protection for her private and family life (Article 8).

Mr Ryder also argued the prosecution was an unjustifiable interference with Ms Beghal’s “right to free movement” within an EU country as an EU national.

Louis Malby, appearing for the Crown Prosecution Service, told the judges that Schedule 7 empowered officers to question a person entering or leaving the country if they “appear to be a person who is, or has been, concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”.

Any person being questioned was under a legal duty to give the officer any information in his or her possession that was requested.

Arguing that Mrs Beghal’s rights had not been breached, Mr Malby said: “The ability to stop and examine passengers at ports is an essential tool in the protection of the public from terrorism.”

Mr Malby said Mrs Beghal was given an opportunity to consult with a solicitor in advance of questioning, and it was agreed that a telephone consultation took place.

But a solicitor would have had no purpose at the actual questioning, other than as an observer to ensure proper procedure, as Mrs Beghal was under a legal obligation to answer the questions put to her.

Reserving judgment, the judges said they would give their ruling at a future date.