Newsline 18 July 2014

Newsline 18 July 2014

Newsline is a weekly round-up of news and opinion from the NSS website. If you're not already a member, becoming one is the most tangible way of supporting our work. Our campaigning is wholly supported by our members, people like you who share our belief that secularism is an essential element in promoting equality between all citizens. Please join today.

News, Blogs & Opinion

Prominent Christian Nicky Morgan becomes Education Secretary

News | Tue, 15th Jul 2014

David Cameron has promoted conservative minister and prominent Christian Nicky Morgan to the position of secretary of state for education, replacing Michael Gove who had been in the role since 2010. Ms Morgan will also continue in her role as minister for women and equalities.

The new Education Secretary is an advocate of David Cameron's Big Society and her voting record shows her to be a very strong supporter of more autonomy for schools.

In 2010 she voted against against requiring academy schools to have a curriculum which includes personal, social and health education (including sex and relationships education).

Ms Morgan has also expressed that "as a Christian active in politics", she feels it is her "duty" to stop what she describes as the "continuing creeping secularism in Britain", which includes "attempts to end things such as a time for prayers at civic events". Such secularism, she feels, is not desired by many.

She has also argued that that Christianity and politics are not separable and are "interwoven in Britain" and has said that "we would all be poorer for any loosening of the ties."

She is a trustee and member of the Conservative Christian Fellowship, and has described the prominent place of her faith in her politics. She has described her role in Parliament as not only to serve her constituents, but "to remember the Word of God and serve the Lord."

Despite her position as equalities minister she voted against same sex marriage, partly because she could not reconcile it with her faith. She commented, "There have been plenty of little changes down the years, but what's never been changed is that the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman."

The appointment was criticised by former Labour MEP and equality campaigner Michael Cashman, who said it was "deeply worrying" that Ms Morgan has been appointed minister for women and equalities and secretary of state for education.

Stephen Evans, National Secular Society campaigns manager, commented:

"At a time when our schools are increasingly being used to promote and instil particular religious beliefs in children and young people, what we really need is an Education Secretary prepared to question the role of religion in schools and not make children's autonomous rights subservient to demand from faith groups. It appears unlikely that we have that in Nicky Morgan.

The omens are not good, but rather than using her position to promote her personal penchant for Christianity, we hope Ms Morgan will work towards a more inclusive and fair education system and promote equally of esteem all children, regardless of their religious and philosophical backgrounds.​

Legislation introduced to abolish chancel repair liability

News | Fri, 18th Jul 2014

A parliamentary bill has been introduced to abolish chancel repair liability – an ancient law that can force homeowners to pay for some ancient Anglican parish church repairs.

The Chancel Repairs Bill, which received its first reading this week, seeks to remove the liability.

Thousands of homeowners have received notifications in the last ten years that their properties have been registered by the Church of England as being liable for contributions towards church repair costs.

Precise figures are not available but it is thought that around 10,000 titles have been registered in several hundred parishes. It is thought that for every property that has been registered another twenty are theoretically liable.

The Private Members' Bill has been tabled by Lord Avebury following discussions with the National Secular Society, which has been campaigning for abolition of the ancient law.

Chancel repair liability was, at least originally, an ecclesiastical liability under the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts. Jurisdiction was transferred to the civil courts by the Chancel Repairs Act 1932.

Concerns have been raised that owners of affected properties are likely to find the values of their homes diminished and find them significantly more difficult to sell.

Registrations have already caused significant distress but some have been withdrawn by the Church following a backlash from homeowners angered by being registered, despite not being aware of the liability when they purchased their properties.

Abolition was recommended by the Law Commission in 1985 following extensive consultation with the Church of England whose Synod had, three years earlier, approved a report presented by the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, recommending the phasing out of chancel repair liability. If the recommendations had been acted upon then, chancel repair liability would already have been phased out. Phasing out was also recommended by the Law Society in 2006.

Lord Avebury said: "Thousands of landowners' titles are still today blighted by chancel repair liability, a relic of mediaeval ecclesiastical law. Titles that have been registered by the Church with the Land Registry are those most likely to be adversely affected. This generally leads to a distressing reduction in value and even an impairment of saleability, despite the Church rarely enforcing the liability.

"The Law Commission and Law Society have recommended abolition, the latter by phasing out. The Church's Synod supported abolition, albeit in 1982, and has not reversed its decision. Accordingly, I have invited the Church to support this Bill."

A date for the second reading, where the Bill will be debated, is yet to be scheduled. Explanatory Notes for the Bill have been published on Parliament's website are available here.

Sign the petition to abolish chancel repair liability

Prison imams found to have links with Islamic extremism

News | Mon, 14th Jul 2014

Some of the imams working in UK prisons as chaplains have links with Muslim extremist groups, and may be contributing to the radicalisation of inmates, The Times newspaper has revealed.

The views of the groups concerned include advocating the killing of adulterers, the killing of women who have pre-marital sex and beating women.

According to the Muslim advisor for the Prison Service, Ahtsham Ali, in 2009 there were 203 Muslim chaplains employed by the Prison service. A Ministry of Justice document states that of the total number of chaplains, 80 were employed full-time. Prison chaplains are funded by the state, and since 1952, by law, every prison has been obliged to have one.

There are just under 12,000 Muslim prisoners in Britain's jails, with around 100 of them considered al-Qaeda-inspired Islamist terrorists, according to The Times.

The government says that it deploys imams in order to help steer Muslim inmates away from extremist paths, but there have been suggestions that some of these imams are in fact part of the problem of spreading extremism rather than part of the solution.

According to The Times report, the Prison Officers' Association has said that there is a "real problem" with inmates being radicalised, with some imams with radical views having "slipped through the net".

The Times highlights three imam chaplains with extremist links. One is Shaykh Yusuf Az Zahaby, who, along with being a chaplain and mentor in West Bromwich, is a leading member of Al Hikma Media. Al Hikma media is a preacher-run group which has expressed extremist views and whose members include Abdur Raheem Green, who supports the beating of women to "bring them goodness" and Shady Suleiman, who has promoted the killing of women who have pre-marital sex.

Another is Azadul Hussain, who has mentored prisoners in Bedford. He has shared material on his Facebook page from MPAC, an anti-Semitic Islamic extremist group that advocates killing adulterers.

A third chaplain with extremist links highlighted is Sahib Bleher, who had been a part-time chaplain at Woodhill high-security prison in Milton Keynes for eight years. He was also the general secretary of the Islamic Party of Britain, a political party that allegedly advocated the death penalty for public displays of homosexuality and wanted to transform Britain into an Islamic state. Mr Bleher denies that he has ever had extreme views.

Professor Anthony Glees, head of the centre for security and intelligence studies at the University of Buckingham has called for better vetting procedures in the recruitment of chaplains.

He described UK prisons as "a state-funded breeding ground for extremism."

He has also said that it is necessary to "stop confusing 'preachers' with 'chaplains'" and that "their religious qualifications should be properly checked, they should be required to preach in English and told they must keep clear of all political issues."

Professor Glees argues, that "what these 'preachers' do is put extreme views to prisoners - for example gays should be hanged, the Jews/CIA carried out 9/11, adulteresses should be stoned to death. They foment resentments and when you add extremism to resentment you get radicalisation and ultimately terrorism. Not every radical is a terrorist but every terrorist has been a radical."

According to a spokesperson for Her Majesty's Prison Service, it is "committed to tackling extremism in prison and chaplains are a vital part of this work, helping to challenge dangerous and distorted views. Muslim chaplains are subject to rigorous security vetting and checks — as are all prison staff. Any member of staff giving cause for concern will be dealt with robustly."

Solicitors Regulation Authority withdraws endorsement of Law Society’s sharia guidance

News | Mon, 14th Jul 2014

The Solicitor's Regulatory Authority (SRA) has removed a reference to the Law Society's controversial practice note on drafting 'Sharia compliant' wills from its from its ethics guidance on wills.

A spokesperson for the SRA, the regulatory body for solicitors in England and Wales, confirmed to the National Secular Society that it had removed the reference, adding that it had done so "in response to concerns that had been raised".

The SRA issued ethics guidance on drafting and preparation of wills in May, in which it advised solicitors: "If you are acting for clients for whom sharia succession rules may be relevant you will find the Law Society's practice note on the subject helpful."

In the practice note, solicitors are advised that under sharia "male heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir of the same class" and that "non-Muslims may not inherit at all".

The SRA is a public authority for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 and is fully bound by the public sector equality duty (PSED).

The PSED requires public bodies such as the SRA to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between different people when carrying out their activities.

In June, the National Secular Society called on the SRA to remove the reference, arguing that the body charged with setting standards for solicitors should play no part in legitimising religious codes as if they were law, or recommending guidance that encourages discrimination.

In an open letter to the SRA, the Lawyers Secular Society (LSS) called on the regulator to explain how, in endorsing the Law Society's guidance on sharia succession rules, it had discharged its PSED.

Solicitors acting on behalf of Southall Black Sisters (SBS) and One Law for All (OLFA) subsequently threatened legal action on gender equality grounds.

Responding to the development, the Law Society, said: "The Solicitors Regulation Authority has made no comment about the content of our practice note. We have no plans to withdraw the guidance."

Louise Whitfield of Deighton Pierce Glynn Solicitors, acting on behalf of SBS and OLFA, called on the Law Society to reconsider its position and withdraw the practice note now that the SRA has agreed to remove its own reference to it.

She added, "I am surprised that the Law Society considers that it did not have to consult with any women's organisations or organisations working with Muslim women, despite the fact that there are significant disputes surrounding Sharia succession rules and a wide range of interpretations as to how they should apply."

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society welcomed the SRA's disassociation with the Law Society's guidance, which he said "flew in the face" of the Regulator's Public Sector Equality Duty.

Mr Wood said: "The removal should be provoke some deep thought by the Law Society whose guidance appears to have been issued without any thought for the equality implications, or indeed whether the Society should be issuing what is essentially religious guidance."

Why is the Law Society promoting Islamic rules and legal services?

Opinion | Fri, 18th Jul 2014

After attending a seminar held by the Law Society on Islamic rules and legal services, Sadikur Rahman reflects upon the Society's desire to develop its members' knowledge of sharia law in the UK and questions how this contributes to Muslim people's freedoms.

Not satisfied with issuing guidance on sharia inheritance and succession rules, the Law Society it seems is now even more enthusiastic about sharia law than we previously thought. Clearly, none of the criticism it has faced has led to a re-think.

It held a talk on 24 June 2014 called "Developing services for Muslim clients – an introduction to Islamic rules for small firms"The Law Society was very keen to ensure its members (or those who attended the talk) knew how to apply sharia law provisions for clients who may request such a service.

The talk focused on three areas: wills and succession; Islamic finance; and marriage, divorce and child custody. It was led by a panel of senior lawyers who seemed to have quite a lot of knowledge of the intricacies of sharia law, although it must be said not a particularly "reformist" one.

From a secular perspective I do not see a huge problem with Islamic finance and the products which are being offered by financial institutions as "sharia compliant". Indeed the talk focused on what that might mean and highlighted the fact that so-called "scholars" (who the speakers seemed to have a very high opinion of) might have divergent views on what is "sharia compliant". As long as these products are available to all, then they are simply another form of bond or financial transaction not very different from any other. The proponents of Islamic finance try to argue that it is a form of ethical finance, so for example there would be no investments in gambling, alcohol or pornography. This really is no different from many other "ethical" products/banking services currently in the system. On the whole the products offered such as Islamic mortgages or car finance add an amount to be repaid in addition to the capital sum, which seems to be roughly the same as if interest were charged although of course it is not called that.

It is far more concerning, however, when sharia moves into the personal realm of family life. The debate about sharia compliant wills has been going on for a while, and despite all the criticism it has faced the Law Society do not seem in the least bit concerned that discriminatory practices are being endorsed. It seems to have been accepted by the panel that the sharia rules in relation to succession are discriminatory, again highlighting that, contrary to what many Muslim reformers might argue, there is a long way to go before sharia law is reformed. The panel's point of view was that although it is discriminatory, as we have freedom of testamentary disposition it does not matter that it is discriminatory because people can behave in such a manner anyway in relation to their assets. The right to freedom of testamentary disposition is used as an argument in favour of promoting these services.

What I feel is missed, is that for Muslims or at least those Muslims who feel very strongly about their religion, it is not a choice as to whether to follow sharia or not: they must follow it. If the service is offered, Muslims may feel compelled to use these services as part of their religious obligations. Surely, this is in fact taking away their freedom of testamentary disposition. These rules are sanctioned by the Quran – there is no freedom for Muslims to distribute their assets otherwise. The only part which is in any way similar to an "English" will is the "freely disposable third". However, that can only be given to charities and not to other members of the family such as a daughter who may have been disinherited by the rules.

By promoting these services for Muslims in England and Wales, they are offering the prospect for Muslims to live according to a different set of rules than other people. From the Law Society's point of view it's simply a matter of choice, but for Muslims, it may not be a matter of choice; in fact the option to choose is being taken away from them, especially if one goes to a solicitor who then tells them their will may not be sharia compliant. I accept that people can discriminate in their wills anyway, but why promote it or bring it to people's attention?

The talk then ventured into even more worrying territory, such as how sharia law views marriage, divorce and child custody. It was made clear that Muslim women can request a divorce from their husband or the sharia council, but it wasn't made clear that a man need not request anybody's permission to divorce his wife. In keeping with the tone of the talk that little bit of fundamental discrimination and inequality was ironed over or studiously ignored. The talk focused on the kind of proofs a wife may need to obtain a divorce and also tackled the "straw man argument" that apparently everyone thinks Muslim men can divorce at will, as if that, rather than the fundamental inequality between men and women was a cause for concern. We were told that this was not the case and in fact the couple should wait a month before each pronunciation of divorce.

With mediation being encouraged by the family courts and becoming the way forward to resolve all marital disputes, it is inevitable that sharia councils and the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal will step in to offer these services in a sharia law setting. Firms approached by Muslim clients will be able to offer their services to represent them at these tribunals. This, I fear, will lead to the operation of a parallel system of law – used solely by Muslims, albeit nominally under the aegis of English law.

Finally, we were advised on the rights of divorcing couples in relation to children. It was pointed out very clearly that all things being normal – no abuse, mental illness, etc – the sharia law position is that children will go to the mother until the age of 7, and thereafter return to the father. It was said the family courts ought to take this into consideration. If someone went to a sharia council to mediate on this, that is the advice they would be given. No thought, it seems, is being given to the fundamental principle in English family law that the interests of the child are absolutely paramount.

Most worryingly the panel seemed completely unaware of the very relevant case of EM (Lebanon) (FC) (Appellant) (FC) –v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) 2008.

The case concerned an appeal by a divorced mother to be allowed to remain in the UK on the basis that if she were forced to return to Lebanon her right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights would be breached, because of the impact of sharia child custody rules on her and her family. The Lords agreed with her. It is I think worth quoting the relevant paragraphs from Lord Hope in full, as it a clear statement of the incompatibility of certain sharia laws with human rights (emphasis added):

5. There is however one aspect of this case which I have found particularly difficult. The appellant came to this country as a fugitive from Shari'a law. Her son had reached the age of seven when, under the system that regulates the custody of a child of that age under Shari'a law in Lebanon, his physical custody would pass by force of law to his father or another male member of his family. Any attempt by her to retain custody of him there would be bound to fail. This is simply because the law dictates that a mother has no right to the custody of her child after that age. She may or may not be allowed what has been described as visitation. That would give her access to her son during supervised visits to a place where she could see him. But under no circumstances would his custody remain with her. The close relationship that exists between mother and child up to the age of custodial transfer cannot survive under that system of law where, as in this case, the parents of the child are no longer living together when the child reaches that age. There is a real risk in all these cases that the very essence of the family life that mother and child have shared together up to that date will be destroyed or nullified.

6. This system was described by counsel during the argument as arbitrary and discriminatory. So it is, if it is to be measured by the human rights standards that we are obliged to apply by the Convention. The mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other's company is a fundamental element of family life. Under our law non-discrimination is a core principle for the protection of human rights. The fact is however that Shari'a law as it is applied in Lebanon was created by and for men in a male dominated society. The place of the mother in the life of a child under that system is quite different under that law from that which is guaranteed in the Contracting States by article 8 of the Convention read in conjunction with article 14. There is no place in it for equal rights between men and women. It is, as Lord Bingham points out, the product of a religious and cultural tradition that is respected and observed throughout much of the world. But by our standards the system is arbitrary because the law permits of no exceptions to its application, however strong the objections may be on the facts of any given case. It is discriminatory too because it denies women custody of their children after they have reached the age of custodial transfer simply because they are women. That is why the appellant removed her child from that system of law and sought protection against its effects in this country.

The case law is therefore quite clear. Why then was this talk advising us what the sharia law was in relation to these areas of law? It was not simply giving information – which would be understandable. I would even understand it if the talk was giving guidance on say the law in Gulf states or Egyptian law or Bangladeshi law which all have elements of sharia law in them and which one could quite easily point to, by reference to statutes. Indeed there are many clients, for example British Bangladeshis, who would benefit from guidance and advice about Bangladeshi law. Plenty of firms operate in the Middle East and so need to be aware of the laws in those countries. Even if it is based on sharia law, any such country guidance would be based on clear law and statute – not a nebulous concept of "sharia law". The point being that the laws in those countries may not tally with an agreed version of sharia law as there is no such thing, but would nonetheless be a more useful piece of guidance.

So again why is the Law Society doing this? It intends to have more detailed seminars in the future. I feel it is another example of national identities and cultures being subsumed into a stronger religious identity. It seems to me that the Law Society is developing and promoting sharia law because it has been lobbied by groups wanting to promote sharia law. It was positively encouraging the listeners to be aware of these rules so they could advise their Muslim clients when preparing wills, prenuptial agreements or divorce settlements whether financial or in relation to children.

I found the tone of the talk to be one of an unquestioning belief that sharia rules are worthy of being considered law. Sharia is not law, it should not become law and it should not be given the credibility of being considered as law. If people want to live according to what they consider sharia law in the UK they can do so, as far as is legally possible in the civil matters stated above and they can get advice from the mosque and the internet. It should not, however, be the job of the Law Society to advise us what "sharia law" is

Sadikur Rahman is a member of the Lawyers Secular Society. The views expressed in our blogs are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the LSS or of the NSS.