Hege Storhaug, HRS
Dette er altså Europa 2010: sharialov praktiseres med statens velsignelse. Gjør nå det noe, all den tid det ikke kuttes av hender og føtter? Vel, i et presumptivt likestilt Europa er det kanskje et problem at en kvinnes menneskerettigheter filleristes og at kvinner også presses og trues inn i disse domstolene fordi de nettopp der er frarøvet grunnleggende rettigheter?
Situasjonen i Storbritannia er så absurd at den er vanskelig å ta innover seg. Hvordan kunne det være mulig at justisdepartementet godkjente shariadomstoler ved et pennestrøk og uten debatt? En verre statlig omsorgssvikt overfor muslimske kvinner og barn har vel Europa knapt opplevd. Jeg er fullstendig klar over at med eller uten statlig legitimerte shariadomstoler, så praktiseres sharia uansett på ”bakrommet”. I hvor stor utstrekning, se det er det ingen som vet. Jeg har dog til gode å møte en eneste troende muslim (også de ”lighte”), som ikke må en tur i moskeen for å få en imams velsignelse av ekteskap inngått hos byfogden. Man er ikke ordentlig gift uten at sharia ”har sagt sitt”. Det samme gjelder skilsmisse. Man kan ha så mange originaler av en skilsmisse utstedt av Fylkesmannen som man bare vil. Det hjelper dog ikke – det er den islamske skilsmissen man må kunne legge på bordet for at det gis en ”hellig” aksept for samlivsbruddet blant egne og i aktuelle miljø. Denne realiteten opplevde jeg på nært hold i 1999, da jeg traff ei norskfødt jente som ble tvangsgiftet 15 år gammel i Pakistan. Hun var under den lovlige ekteskapsalderen i Pakistan, derfor kunne ikke ekteskapet registreres der. På papiret var hun altså ikke gift. Men hjalp det da hun tok mot til seg 18 år gammel og ga beskjed til foreldrene at de kunne glemme at hun hentet denne mannen til Norge som ektefelle? Nei, hun var gift på muslimsk vis, det visste endog ”alle pakistanere” i Norge. Derfor måtte hun ordne seg en muslimsk skilsmisse – helst fra Pakistan.
Denne lille historien forteller egentlig svært mye om hvor utbredt sharia antakelig er i Norge nå. Men ingen politiske parti vil våge å legalisere shariadomstoler slik Storbritannia har gjort. Da Regjeringen ved Erna Solberg mer enn luftet ideen i 2003, var motreaksjonene så sterke at Høyre i ettertid har prøvd å benekte at ideen overhodet ble luftet. Dette sa statsråd Solberg:
Kommunaldepartementet vil utrede mulighetene for å få etablert et religiøst shariaråd som har myndighet til å utstede skilsmisser i Norge.- Vi ønsker en dialog med de miljøer dette gjelder. Det er helt klart et ønske om en slik domstol, om vi kan finne en måte å etablere det på i Norge. Men det må initieres av miljøene selv, sier kommunalminister Erna Solberg.
I ettertid har Solberg benektet hva hun hadde under oppseiling. Vel, det er kjekt vi har arkiv å gå til. Uansett, Solbergs snuoperasjon bevitner påstanden min om at ikke et eneste parti på Stortinget vil tenke tanken på å åpne for sharia.
I Storbritannia, der det antakelig er flere hundre shariaorgan, har gruppen One Law for All satt seg som mål å fjerne disse diskriminerende institusjonene. I Guardian beskriver talspersonen Maryam Namazie hvordan legalisert sharia fungerer på de britiske øyene:
The recent global day against the imminent stoning of Sakine Mohammadi-Ashtiani in Iran for adultery is an example of the outrage sparked by the brutality associated with sharia law’s penal code.
What of its civil code though – which the Muslim Council of Britain’s Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra describes as «small aspects» that concern «marriage, divorce, inheritance, custody of children»? According to human rights campaigner Gita Sahgal, «there is active support for sharia laws precisely because it is limited to denying women rights in the family. No hands are being cut off, so there can’t be a problem …»
Now a report, Sharia Law in Britain: A Threat to One Law for All and Equal Rights, reveals the adverse effect of sharia courts on family law. Under sharia’s civil code, a woman’s testimony is worth half of a man’s. A man can divorce his wife by repudiation, whereas a woman must give justifications, some of which are difficult to prove. Child custody reverts to the father at a preset age; women who remarry lose custody of their children even before then; and sons inherit twice the share of daughters.
There has been much controversy about Muslim arbitration tribunals, which have attracted attention because they operate as tribunals under the Arbitration Act, making their rulings binding in UK law.
But sharia councils, which are charities, are equally harmful since their mediation differs little from arbitration. Sharia councils will frequently ask people to sign an agreement to abide by their decisions. Councils call themselves courts and the presiding imams are judges. There is neither control over the appointment of these judges nor an independent monitoring mechanism. People often do not have access to legal advice and representation. Proceedings are not recorded, nor are there any searchable legal judgements. Nor is there any real right to appeal.
There is also danger to those at risk of domestic violence. In one study, four out of 10 women attending sharia courts were party to civil injunctions against their husbands.
«In this way, these privatized legal processes were ignoring not only state law intervention and due process but providing little protection and safety for the women. Furthermore … husbands used this opportunity to negotiate reconciliation, financial settlements for divorce, and access to children. Settlements which in effect were being discussed under the shadow of law.«
An example of the kind of decision that is contrary to UK law and public policy is the custody of children. Under British law, the child’s best interest is the court’s paramount consideration. In a sharia court the custody of children reverts to the father at a preset age regardless of the circumstances. In divorce proceedings, too, civil law takes into account the merits of the case and divides assets based on the needs and intentions of both parties. Under sharia law, only men have the right to unilateral divorce. If a woman manages to obtain a divorce without her husband’s consent, she will lose the sum of money (or dowry) that was agreed to at the time of marriage.
There is an assumption that those who attend sharia courts do so voluntarily and that unfair decisions can be challenged. Since much of sharia law is contrary to British law and public policy, in theory they would be unlikely to be upheld in a British court. In reality, women are often pressured by their families into going to these courts and adhering to unfair decisions and may lack knowledge of their rights under British law. Moreover, refusal to settle a dispute in a sharia court could lead to threats, intimidation or isolation.
With the rise in the sharia courts’ acceptability, discrimination is further institutionalized with some law firms offering clients «conventional» representation alongside sharia law advice.
As long as sharia courts are allowed to make rulings on family law, women will be pressured into accepting decisions which are prejudicial.
The report recommends abolishing the courts by initiating a human rights challenge and amending the Arbitration Act as Canada’s Arbitration Act was amended in 2005 to exclude religious arbitration.
The demand for the abolition of sharia courts in Britain, as elsewhere, is not an attack on people’s right to religion; it is a defence of human rights, especially since the imposition of sharia courts is a demand of Islamism to restrict citizens’ rights.
Rights, justice, inclusion, equality and respect are for people, not for beliefs and parallel legal systems. To safeguard the rights and freedoms of all those living in Britain, there must be one secular law for all and no religious courts.
At kvinners rettigheter på det europeiske kontinentet går i revers kan det være liten tvil om. De som regner seg som medlem av eliten, bryr seg lite om det. Tenk om VG, som kjører en serie i sommer på innvandringens konsekvenser, eksempelvis undersøkte shariaforholdene rundt sentrale moskeer, som Tawfiiq Islams Senter til somaliere i Oslo. Unektelig en svært vanskelig utfordring, men du verden så spennende.