Unequal Justice:
UK Favouring Muslims Over Non-Muslims In Court
|
|
|
Share:  
|
  Be the first of your
friends to like this.
There have been a couple of disturbing signs lately that the United
Kingdom no longer aspires to have one
law for all, that instead UK Muslims are entitled to preferential
treatment. Both signs take the form of extending special privileges
to Muslim women in judicial proceedings. The result may be to
disadvantage non-Muslims vis-à-vis Muslims, while simultaneously institutionalizing
the sexism of Sharia law against Muslim women.
Raping Muslims More Serious Than Raping Non-Muslims
The United Kingdom has chosen to allow rape of an "Asian"
girl to be sanctioned more severely than a similar crime committed against
a white girl.
As noted
previously,
British authorities frequently use "Asian" as a synonym for
"Muslim," as in a government report
of sex-grooming in Rotherham. The report describes perpetrators of
this scandal as "Asian" and sometimes "Pakistani," but
it is clear that many of the perpetrators are Muslim because the response
refers to training packages for Muslim community leaders. Authorities
ignored the situation for sixteen years, partly because of their contempt
for the victims – underage "white" girls – and partly out of fear
that they would be branded as "racist"
(read, "Islamophobic") for prosecuting the perpetrators.
On September 10, 2015, an appeals court agreed
with a sentencing judge's decision to impose a longer sentence on Jamal
Muhammed Raheem Ul Nasir for sexually assaulting two underage
"Asian" girls (at least one of whom was under age 13) because his
victims allegedly suffered more than white girls would.
A little perspective. Studies
of how the death penalty is applied in the United States have suggested
that it is imposed in a racially biased manner, based on the race of the victim
(as distinct from bias based on race of perpetrator); crimes against white
people are more likely to result in the death penalty than crimes against
black people. When slavery was legal in the United States, murder of
a white person was legally sanctioned more severely
than murder of a black person. The heavier penalty was a way of
treating the crime against a white person as inherently more serious than a
similar crime against a black person. There was a logic behind
it. White people had more rights than black people under the law and
were an elevated caste.
Let us assume that the Nasir court's motives are sincere and its
intentions benign. One could certainly argue that the victims are at
least potentially in danger of suffering more. Their families may
murder them for the "crime" of "dishonoring"
the family by having been raped (see here,
here,
here,
here,
and here).
Nevertheless, penalizing rape of a Muslim girl more severely than rape
of a non-Muslim girl simply institutionalizes racism/religious
discrimination and Sharia law (or at least, Sharia law as some Muslims –
such as those affiliated with ISIS
– understand it), and perhaps also the sexism that condones
"honor" crimes. Another way of looking at the decision is
that it resurrects feudal
law, in which different estates had different legal rights and
duties. It makes Muslim victims a higher estate whose members have
greater worth than non-Muslims.
It also gives rapists a perverse incentive that, if they're going to
rape somebody, it's better to rape a non-Muslim, because its potential
consequences would be less severe. It accepts the same rationale used
by the Rotherham perpetrators in selecting their victims. One would
have hoped UK authorities would have been more sensitive to accepting this
mindset and slighting the Rotherham victims barely a year after the
government's report on that scandal was released.
Right to Face Muslim Accuser and Evaluate Evidence
In the name of cultural sensitivity, Lord Neuberger, the President of
the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, said last April that Muslim women
should be allowed to wear a veil
in court, even when testifying.
The issue came up two years ago in the trial of a niqab-wearing Muslim
woman accused of witness intimidation.
Judge Peter Murphy ruled
that the defendant must remove her veil when testifying, but could wear it
at other times. He explained, "The ability of the jury to see
the defendant for the purposes of evaluating her evidence is crucial...
The right to give evidence involves a corresponding duty to submit
that evidence to the scrutiny of the jury."
If Lord Neuberger has his way, the jury's right to evaluate a witness's
demeanour will not apply when the witness is a veiled Muslim woman.
Jurors will see only what she chooses to show them.
Even more disturbing is the prospect that a veiled witness may testify
against a third party. A criminal defendant's right to confront
witnesses against him or her, enshrined in the Sixth Amendment to the
United States Constitution, grew out of British law. It was a
safeguard that arose from abuses like the trial of Sir Walter Raleigh, who
was condemned in part on the evidence of alleged co-conspirator Lord
Cobham. Raleigh demanded the opportunity
to confront
and cross-examine Cobham. His demand was rejected and he was
condemned and sentenced to death (although the king spared his life).
Now, defendants may have the right to confront in name but not reality, as
the accuser (if a Muslim woman) may be masked.
This radical departure has faced opposition from prominent quarters.
Baroness Hale,
the UK's senior female judge, and Prime Minister David Cameron
have both opposed the idea on the grounds that fact-finders must be able to
see a witness's face.
In form, both of the above changes give, or would give, an elevated
legal status to Muslim women. Sex crimes against them have been
sanctioned with extra severity and, if the President of the UK Supreme
Court has his way, they will be able to give evidence for themselves or
against someone else without exposing themselves to the usual scrutiny of a
jury and criminal defendant. Arguably, these exceptions are
motivated, and may contribute to, subjugation of women as the property of
their families (here,
here,
and here).
The net effect is still to enshrine a version of Islamic mores in British
law, and to elevate Muslims over non-Muslims.
Johanna Markind is Associate
Counselor for the Middle East Forum.
Related
Topics: Legal | Johanna Markind This
text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral
whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author,
date, place of publication, and original URL.
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment