Sharia in Britain (2)

Government refuses to back gender-equality measure
  
Last Monday, amid much fanfare from the prime minister, the British government issued a 40-page document setting out what it likes to describe as its "counter-extremism" strategy. Among many other things, the document cited evidence that unofficial "sharia councils" in Britain are operating in ways that are incompatible with the law – for example by denying equal rights to women who use their services.

"The fight against Islamist extremism is, I believe, one of the great struggles of our generation," prime minister David Cameron wrote in his introduction to the report. "In responding to this poisonous ideology, we face a choice. Do we close our eyes, put our kid gloves on and just hope that our values will somehow endure in the end?"

Five days later we have an answer to Cameron's question, and it appears to be YES – the kid gloves are on, at least where sharia in Britain is concerned. In the House of Lords yesterday, the government refused to back a very modest proposal by Baroness Cox, a cross-bench peer, that would have gone some way to protecting Muslim women from discrimination by Britain's sharia bodies.

I discussed the details of Cox's proposal, officially known as the Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill, in a blog post on Thursday but basically the bill seeks to assert the supremacy of national law and prevent sharia bodies from trying to over-ride it. For example, it would require sharia bodies to comply with the 2010 Equality Act and prevent them from describing themselves as courts.

Among those taking an interest in this issue, Cox's efforts over the last few years have gained a wide spectrum of support that includes secularists, Christians and Jews as well as some Muslim organisations that support women's rights.

Yesterday's two-hour debate in the Lords also showed very broad support for the bill, with several peers from the ruling Conservative party among those who spoke in its favour.

Despite ample evidence, however, the government has only recently conceded that there is a problem and seems strangely reluctant to take action over it.

Speaking for the government in yesterday's debate, Lord Faulks (from the Ministry of Justice) saw no need for a change in the law:

"While we agree entirely with the noble Baroness [Cox] that the necessary standards and safeguards must be in place, at the moment we do not agree that the law needs changing to facilitate this, because relevant and specific protections are already in place in common law and in existing legislation."

Claiming that it doesn't know enough about the problem, the government has instead announced the setting-up of an "independent review" which is supposed to produce an "initial" report some time next year.

In yesterday's debate, Lord Anderson of Swansea (Labour) said he hoped the review "will not be of Chilcotian length" – a reference to the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war which, almost five years after the inquiry ended, has yet to publish its report.

Lord Blencathra (Conservative) wanted to know why the government was only promising an "initial" report by next year:

"Why just an 'initial' report? It is not too complicated surely to goodness; let us have a full report. And when will we have it in 2016?"

Lord Blencathra also asked for a government assurance that "if a real problem is identified in 2016" legislation on the matter will be included in the Queen's Speech of 2017. But Lord Faulks gave no such assurance:

"On the question of legislation, I do not want to prejudge anything the inquiry may find, although certainly legislation may be an option. But that is a matter which will be considered in due course. The investigation will enhance our understanding of any ongoing misuse of sharia law and the extent of the problem where it exists."

Despite the government's foot-dragging, the bill was given a second reading in the Lords yesterday, which means it will now be sent for further consideration in committee. If it passes all its stages in the Lords it will then have to go through a similar process in the House of Commons where the big question will be whether the government is prepared to allocate parliamentary time to it.