Fabian Conference: Feminism and Sharia Law

UPDATE FROM THE FABIAN CONFERENCE

By Tom Miller

Johann Hari makes the point that Sharia courts advocate deeply unequal treatment for women. He believes it’s a myth that women voluntarily submit to the authority of these courts and that they’re often effectively hoodwinked into doing so by men who lead them to believe that the courts have a hard legal authority behind them.

I think that these are two separate points. The point about the unequal approach of the content of Sharia towards men and women is totally valid; Sharia Law is unquestionably highly regressive in this respect.

The second point is one that is, in my view, about freedom of contract in a general sense. Yes, it’s bad when women are deceived into going to Sharia courts and submitting to their authority. But it’s bad if people go into any religious court system under that impression (the Jewish equivalent, the Beth Din, springs immediately to mind). In fact, it’s bad if people are deceived into contracts full stop.

Clear misrepresentation voids contracts in almost all legal systems… this applies to agreements to be bound by Sharia courts as much as anything else to which people agree based on false information.

In other words, a hypothetical situation whereby people (and women specifically) submit on mass to Sharia courts would also have to include appeal to Her Majesty’s courts, should the person have been a victim of a misrepresentation regarding the court’s powers and legitimacy.

Perhaps if policy concentrated on getting this message out (ie Sharia is never compulsory and can only punish via breach of contract), we could preserve the maximum freedom of contract (and religious conscience), while helping those who fall prey to deceit.

As a side point, the big question for Hari is whether he thinks Muslim women are more likely to fall prey to such behaviour than those in Jewish families, and why.