Here is the fulcrum around which so much of the problem turns: the belief that Islamic law has every right to be put into practice in non-Muslim countries, and the insistence that a parallel, if unequal, legal system can function alongside civil and criminal law codes adhered to by a majority of a country's citizens. ---
A network of Orthodox Jewish religious courts (Halakha) exist across the United States and in other countries. Their activities are permitted, so why not Sharia courts? In democracies, religious courts are consensual, functioning for the benefit of the communities they serve, mostly in matters of family status, marriage, divorce etc. They may not, of course, submit judgments that violate state or federal law. Like some Sharia courts in the Middle East, there was a time when Jewish Courts would issue draconian rulings for such 'crimes' as violating the Sabbath. In Israel they still have the power to fine or imprison people for certain violations of religious law. In Israel religious courts also have absolute Jurisdiction in many matters. However in Europe and the USA, these courts have to also abide by local laws, as does Sharia institutions. There are many other communities in the USA that have unusual, religious-based rules for their members. The Mormons and the Amish are good examples. They often reject the American court system in favor of their own 'Godly' method of resolving many disputes and infractions of religious dictates. No-one wants a return to the Christian-Catholic Religious courts of the middle ages that tortured and executed people for behavior that is not even considered a crime today, such as heresy. But Catholics can still be excommunicated from the church in a judicial-style process. Religious criteria, whether Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, should not be a factor in decisions of US state or Federal courts. However these separate courts have been traditional in many religious communities and seem to operate fairly well in democracies based on past experience. Sharia will never become 'the law of the land', neither will Halakha or Catholic Religious dogma, but for observant Catholics, Muslims and Jews their institutions are an important part of religious practice. Providing that state and federal laws are observed, and participation is voluntary, their function is one of mediation, community cohesion, and of course the enforcement of religious rules on people who choose to be part of their community. On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 7:41:58 AM UTC-5, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > *Sharia Law or One Law for All?* > > > *by Denis MacEoin > <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/author/Denis+MacEoin>March 12, 2016 at > 5:00 am* > > *http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7562/sharia-law > <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7562/sharia-law>* > > Here is the fulcrum around which so much of the problem turns: the belief > that Islamic law has every right to be put into practice in non-Muslim > countries, and the insistence that a parallel, if unequal, legal system can > function alongside civil and criminal law codes adhered to by a majority of > a country's citizens. > > - Salafism is a form of Islam that insists on the application of > whatever was said or done by Muhammad or his companions, brooking no > adaptation to changing times, no recognition of democracy or man-made laws. > - The greatest expression of this failure to integrate, indeed a > determined refusal to do so, may be found in the roughly 750 > Muslim-dominated no-go zones in France, which the police, fire brigades, > and other representatives of the social order dare not visit for fear of > sparking off riots and attacks. Similar zones now exist in other European > countries, notably Sweden and Germany. According to the 2011 British > census > there are over 100 Muslim enclaves in the country. > > As millions of Muslims flow into Europe > <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/topics/37/europes-migrant-crisis>, > some from Syria, others from as far away as Afghanistan or sub-Saharan > Africa, several countries are already experiencing high levels of social > breakdown. Several articles have chronicled the challenges posed in > countries such as Sweden > <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7577/sweden-migrants-sexual-assault> > and Germany > <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7557/germany-rape-migrants-crisis>. > Such challenges are socio-economic in nature: how to accommodate such a > large influx of migrants; the rising costs of providing then with housing, > food, and benefits, and the expenses incurred by increased levels of > policing in the face of growing lawlessness in some areas. If migrants > continue to enter European Union countries at the current rate, these costs > are likely to rise steeply; some countries, such as Hungary, have already > seen how greatly counterproductive and self-destructive Europe's reception > of almost anyone who reaches its borders has been. > > The immediate impact, however, of these new arrivals is not likely to be a > simple challenge, something that may be remedied by increasing restrictions > on numbers, deportations of illegal migrants, or building fences. During > the past several decades, some European countries -- notably Britain, > France, Germany, Sweden, and Denmark -- have received large numbers of > Muslim immigrants, most of them through legal channels. According to a Pew > report > <http://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/the-future-of-the-global-muslim-population/> > > in 2010, there were over 44 million Muslims in Europe overall, a figure > expected to rise to over 58 million by 2030. > > The migration wave from Muslims countries that began in 2015 is likely to > increase these figures by a large margin. In France, citizens of former > French colonies in Morocco, Algeria, and some sub-Saharan states, together > with migrants from several other Muslim countries in the Middle East and > Asia, form a population estimated at several million, but reckoned to be > the largest Muslim population in Europe. France is closely followed by > Germany – a country now taking in very large numbers of immigrants. There > are currently some 5.8 million Muslims in Germany, but this figure is > widely expected to rise > <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6793/germany-20-million-muslims> > exponentially over the next five years or more. > > The United Kingdom, at around 3 million > <http://www.brin.ac.uk/2010/how-many-muslims/>, has the third largest > Muslim population in Europe. Islam today is the second-largest religion in > the country. The majority of British Muslims originally came from rural > areas in Pakistan (such as Mirpur and Bangladesh's Sylhet), starting in the > 1950s. Over time, many British Muslims have integrated well into the wider > population. But in general, integration has proven a serious problem, > especially in cities such as Bradford, or parts of London such as Tower > Hamlets; and there are signs that, as time passes, assimilation is becoming > harder, not easier. A 2007 report by British think tank Policy Exchange, > *Living > Apart Together > <http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/living%20apart%20together%20-%20jan%2007.pdf>*, > > revealed that members of the younger generation were more radical and > orthodox than their fathers and grandfathers – a reversal almost certainly > unprecedented within an immigrant population over three or more > generations. The same pattern may be found across Europe and the United > States. A visible sign of this desire to stand out from mainstream society > is the steady growth in the numbers of young Muslim women wearing *niqabs*, > *burqas*, and *hijabs* – formerly merely a tradition, but now apparently > seen as an obligatory assertion of Muslim identity. > > In Germany, the number of Salafists rose by 25% in the first half of 2015, > according to a report > <http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/203882#.VmmB8nvLP9A> > from The Clarion Project. Salafism is a form of Islam that insists on the > application of whatever was said or done by Muhammad or his companions, > brooking no adaptation to changing times, no recognition of democracy or > man-made laws. This refusal to adapt has been very well expressed by Iran's > Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini: > > "Islam is not constrained by time or space, for it is eternal... what > Muhammad permitted is permissible until the Day of Resurrection; what he > forbade is forbidden until the Day of Resurrection. It is not permissible > that his ordinances be superseded, or that his teachings fall into disuse, > or that the punishments [he set] be abandoned, or that the taxes he levied > be discontinued, or that the defense of Muslims and their lands cease." > > The greatest expression of this failure to integrate, indeed a determined > refusal to do so, may be found in the roughly 750 *zones urbaines > sensibles > <http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2006/11/the-751-no-go-zones-of-france>* > in France, Muslim-dominated no-go zones > <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5128/france-no-go-zones>, which the > police, fire brigades, and other representatives of the social order dare > not visit for fear of sparking off riots and attacks. Similar zones now > exist in other European countries, notably Sweden and Germany > <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6264/no-go-zones-germany>. > > In the UK, matters have not reached the pitch where the police and others > dare not enter. But in some Muslim-dominated areas, non-Muslims may not be > made welcome, especially women dressed "inappropriately." According to the > 2011 British census there are over 100 Muslim enclaves in the country. "The > Muslim population exceeds 85% in some parts of Blackburn," notes the > scholar Soeren Kern > <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5177/no-go-zones-britain>, "and 70% in > a half-dozen wards in Birmingham and Bradford." There are similarly high > figures for many other British cities. > > Maajid Nawaz of the anti-extremist Quilliam Foundation has spoken > <http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2013/01/muslim-patrols-are-a-sign-of-things-to-come> > > of the growing trend for some radical young Muslims to patrol their streets > to impose a strict application of Islamic sharia law on Muslims and > non-Muslims alike, in direct breach of British legal standards. > > In Britain "Muslims Against the Crusaders > <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2367/european-muslim-no-go-zones>" > have recently declared an Islamic Emirates Project > <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2278/britain-islamic-emirates-project>, > in which they are seeking to enforce their brand of sharia in 12 British > cities. They have named two London boroughs, Waltham Forest and Tower > Hamlets, among their targets. Little surprise then that in these two > boroughs hooded "Muslim patrols > <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3555/sharia-law-london>" have taken to > the streets and begun enforcing a strict view of sharia over unsuspecting > locals. The "Muslim Patrols" warn that alcohol, "immodest" dress and > homosexuality are now banned. To add to these threats, all this is filmed > and uploaded onto the internet. Now, in East London, some shops no longer > feel free to employ uncovered women or sell alcohol without fear of violent > payback. > > Nawaz goes on to write: "[T]he Muslim patrols could become a lot more > dangerous and, perhaps willing to maim or kill if they are joined by > battle-hardened jihadis." Muslims have been beaten up for smoking during > Ramadan; non-Muslims have been forced to leave for carrying alcohol on > British streets. > > A recent report > <http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/12/09/uk-cop-there-are-areas-we-have-to-ask-muslim-leaders-permission-to-patrol/> > > by Raheem Kassam cites British police officers who admit that they often > have to ask permission from Muslim leaders to enter certain areas, and that > they are instructed not to travel to work or go into certain places wearing > their uniforms. > > Here is the fulcrum around which so much of the problem turns: the belief > that Islamic law has every right to be put into practice in non-Muslim > countries, and the insistence that a parallel, if unequal, legal system can > function alongside civil and criminal law codes adhered to by a majority of > a country's citizens. More than one non-Muslim has been ordered to leave > "Islamic territory," and some radicals have attempted to set up "Shariah > Controlled Zones," where only Islamic rules are enforced. Stickers > <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019547/Anjem-Choudary-Islamic-extremists-set-Sharia-law-zones-UK-cities.html> > > placed on lampposts and other structures declare: "You are entering a > Shariah Controlled Zone," where there can be no alcohol, no gambling, no > drugs or smoking, no porn or prostitution, and even no music or concerts. > > And that is not all. Soeren Kern wrote in 2011 > <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2278/britain-islamic-emirates-project>: > > A Muslim group in the United Kingdom has launched a campaign to turn > twelve British cities – including what it calls "Londonistan" – into > independent Islamic states. The so-called Islamic Emirates would function > as autonomous enclaves ruled by Islamic Sharia law and operate entirely > outside British jurisprudence. > > The Islamic Emirates Project, launched by the Muslims Against the Crusades > group, names the British cities of Birmingham, Bradford, Derby, Dewsbury, > Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Luton, Manchester, Sheffield, as well as > Waltham Forest in northeast London and Tower Hamlets in East London as > territories to be targeted for blanket Sharia rule. > > All of this is, of course, illegal. The illegality could not be clearer. > Here we see self-appointed disaffected Muslim entities, who take action to > exercise the power of imposing law on the streets of European cities, and > in practice the writ of Islamic law runs in many towns and cities. Not long > ago, considerable numbers of Muslims from Paris and the surrounding region > would enter the city and take over entire streets in order to perform the > noon Friday prayer. Traffic was blocked, residents could neither enter or > leave their homes, businesses had to close because customers could not > reach them; and all the while, the police stood by, watching but not > interfering, knowing that, if they acted to preserve the law a riot would > ensue. Videos of these incidents are available online > <https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=muslims+praying+on+streets+in+paris>. > > In places where gangs of radicals operate as if they are a mafia, crimes > such as honor killings <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33516885>, female > genital mutilation (FGM) > <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3705/uk-female-genital-mutilation>, > expulsion or worse of individuals considered apostates > <http://formermuslimsunited.org/apostasy-from-islam/>, and more, are > known to take place. More commonly, many Western states are powerless to > prevent forced > <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4367/britain-forced-marriage> and > underage > <http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/home-office-powerless-legal-loophole-4846514> > > marriages, compulsory veiling > <http://www.secularism.org.uk/full-face-veil-should-it-be-bann.html>, > polygamy > <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3234/muslim-polygamists-welfare-benefits>, > and more. > > The police, afraid of charges of racism and "Islamophobia," are reluctant > to take action: In 2014 and 2015, the police and social workers turned a > blind eye for years to Muslim gangs grooming > <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5386/british-girls-raped-oxford>, > prostituting, and raping young white British teenagers in cities such as > Oxford > <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11446312/Oxford-grooming-social-workers-and-police-turned-blind-eye-to-sexualised-culture.html>, > > Birmingham > <http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/police-knew-grooming-gangs-were-9518461>, > > Rochdale <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-25450512> and > Rotherham > <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11391314/Rotherham-child-sex-abuse-scandal-council-not-fit-for-purpose.html>. > > Professor Alexis Jay's report > <http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_inquiry_cse_in_rotherham> > > on the situation in Rotherham alone showed serious failings on the part of > several bodies from the police to social services. The offenses in these > cases were, of course, a breach of sharia law, not an enforcement of it. > [1] <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7562/sharia-law#_ftn1> Yet there > seems to have been an attitude, too, that Muslims are entitled to behave as > they wish, and that British law enforcement is irrelevant. In the trial of > nine men in Rochdale, Judge Gerald Clifton states in his sentencing > <http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/319175/77-years-jail-for-Asian-brutes-who-preyed-on-white-trash-girls-for-sex> > > that "All of you treated the victims as though they were worthless and > beyond any respect – they were not part of your community or religion." > This statement alone seems to illustrate the heart of this problem. > > But the clash between Islamic law and national law in several European > countries has focussed more than anything on the establishment of sharia > councils or sharia courts. These have provoked a wider debate > <http://www.euro-islam.info/key-issues/islamic-law/> than even Islamic > finance, now well situated within the international banking system even > though it is as if Germany under the Third Reich had its own banking system > in which all transactions would go exclusively to strengthening the Third > Reich. In the UK this year, it has been revealed > <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3422642/MPs-moved-Westminster-barred-drinking-Sharia-law.html> > > that, in order to finance extensive repairs to the House of Lords and the > House of Commons, a deal has been done to use Islamic bonds. One result of > this is that peers and MPs will not be allowed to have bars or to consume > alcohol on their own premises. > > The Sharia court debate has been particularly intense in the United > Kingdom, where attempts (some successful) to introduce sharia within the > legal system have been made since 2008. Speaking to the London Muslim > Council in July of that year, Britain's leading judge, Lord Chief Justice > Phillips, declared <http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jul/04/law.islam> > that he believed the introduction of sharia into the UK would be beneficial > to society, *provided* it did not breach British law. It is that > stipulation which has not been adhered to. Not many months earlier, in > February, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Britain's leading > churchman -- also, as Phillips, with a seat in the House of Lords -- > expressed the view that it would be appropriate for British Muslims to use > sharia. He argued that > <http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/feb/07/religion.world> "giving > Islamic law official status in the UK would help achieve social cohesion > because some Muslims did not relate to the British legal system." He went > on to say <http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/feb/07/religion.world>, > > "It's not as if we're bringing in an alien and rival system; we already > have in this country a number of situations in which the internal law of > religious communities is recognised by the law of the land ... There is a > place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some > aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some kinds of aspects of other > religious law." > > That is where the debate began. Williams's call for the introduction of > sharia was rejected at once by the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and by the > Conservative peer and shadow minister for community cohesion and social > action, Sayeeda Warsi. Warsi, herself a Muslim, argued as follows: > > "The archbishop's comments are unhelpful and may add to the confusion that > already exists in our communities ... We must ensure that people of all > backgrounds and religions are treated equally before the law. Freedom under > the law allows respect for some religious practices. But let's be > absolutely clear: all British citizens must be subject to British laws > developed through parliament and the courts." > > One year before, however, sharia had already entered the country. An > organization called the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal had set itself up on > the basis of the 1996 Arbitration Act > <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/contents>. It allows > individuals and businesses to enter into mutually agreed consultation in > which a third party decides between their competing arguments. Mutual > agreement is, of course, the central plank on which the legislation is > based. Muslim tribunals are limited to financial and property issues. They > use sharia standards for intervention, not just between Muslims, but even > between non-Muslims who wish to settle disputes using sharia standards. > Since 2007, the MAT has opened tribunals in Nuneaton, London, Birmingham, > Bradford, and Manchester. They are all considered legal, and their rulings > can be confirmed by county courts and the High Court. > > Acquiescence to the regularization of sharia within UK legal processes > received a major boost for a short time when, in March 2014, the Law > Society issued guidance > <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4246/uk-sharia-law> to permit high > street solicitors to draw up "sharia compliant" wills, even though these > might discriminate against widows, non-Muslims, female heirs, adopted > children and others. When the debate grew more heated and the Law Society > was severely criticized, some months later it withdrew the guidelines > <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11250643/Sharia-law-guidelines-abandoned-as-Law-Society-apologises.html> > > and apologized for having introduced them at all. It was a healthy > expression of the way open debate in democratic societies achieves results. > > By that time, however, there were around 85 sharia councils operating -- > most of them openly, some behind the scenes, across the UK. They had all > been granted recognition by the establishment. These councils are often > confused with the arbitration tribunals, but are, in fact, quite different. > A council (sometimes termed a court) functions as a mediation service -- > also legal in British law. However, the decisions of these councils have no > standing under British law. They are usually composed of a small number of > elderly men with varying degrees of qualification in Islamic law, and they > generally issue advice or fatwas [religious opinions] based on the rulings > of one or another of the main schools of Muslim law. > > It is these councils that are the greatest cause for concern, especially > the limited range of matters on which they issue judgements: marriage, > divorce, child custody, and inheritance. In all of these areas, the > concerns rest principally on the treatment of Muslim women. Among the > leading critics of Sharia on these grounds is one of the most visionary > members of Britain's House of Lords, Baroness Caroline Cox > <http://www.britsattheirbest.com/heroes_adventurers/h_baroness_cox.htm>. > [2] <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7562/sharia-law#_ftn2> The first > thing she did after her elevation to the peerage was to set off in a 32-ton > truck for Communist Poland, Romania, and the Soviet Union, to bring medical > supplies behind the Iron Curtain. She was one of the first Western > politicians to take the threat of Islamism seriously, setting out her > arguments in a 2003 book, *The 'West', Islam and Islamism. Is ideological > Islam compatible with liberal democracy? > <http://www.amazon.com/West-Islam-Islamism-Ideological-Compatible-ebook/dp/B007IWD79E/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1449941337&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=The+%E2%80%98West%E2%80%99%2C+Islam+and+Islamism.+Is+ideological+Islam+compatible+with+liberal+democracy%3F> > > .* > > This concern with Islamism and its incompatibility with secular democratic > norms focuses especially on the application of sharia law within countries > such as the UK, where all citizens are considered to be equal under the > law. Speaking about sharia courts in 2011, Baroness Cox declared > <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/baroness-cox-if-we-ignore-wrongs-we-condone-them-2299937.html> > , > > "We cannot sit here complacently in our red and green benches while women > are suffering a system which is utterly incompatible with the legal > principles upon which this country is founded... If we don't do something, > we are condoning it." > > Recently, she authored a report entitled, *A Parallel World: Confronting > the abuse of many Muslim women in Britain today > <http://www.bowgroup.org/policy/bow-group-report-parallel-world-confronting-abuse-muslim-women-britain>*, > > published by the Bow Group. In it, she not only describes the problems > faced by many Muslim women before Sharia councils, but provides extensive > testimony from women who have been discriminated against and abused by > these "courts."[3] > <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7562/sharia-law#_ftn3> > > In May 2012, Baroness Cox introduced her first Arbitration and Mediation > Services (Equality) Bill > <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2012-2013/0007/13007.pdf> > > in the House of Lords. The bill had its second reading in October that > year, but went no farther. It was backed, however, by a considerable body > of evidence presented in a document, *Equal and Free? > <http://www.secularism.org.uk/uploads/equal-and-free-16.pdf>*, from the > National Secular Society. In June, 2015, Cox introduced a modified > version of the bill > <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2015-2016/0012/16012.pdf>. > > It had its second reading in October, and in November it reached the > committee stage. It still has to pass a few stages before it may possibly > move to the House of Commons, one day perhaps to receive Royal Assent and > become law. It received a very warm reception from members of the Lords, > with only one dissenting opinion, that of Lord Sheikh, a Muslim peer who > sees little or no fault in anything Muslims say or do. However, the > government minister, Lord Faulks, argued that current civil legislation is > all that is needed to guarantee justice for Muslim women. > > Matters are far from as simple as the government would like them to be. > Sharia law is not a cut -and-dried system that can be easily blended with > Western values and statutes. There is no problem when imams or councils > hand out advice on the regulations governing obligatory prayer, fasting, > pilgrimage, alms-giving, the appropriateness or inappropriateness of > following this or that spiritual tradition, or even whether men and women > may sit together in a hall or meet without a chaperone. For pious Muslims, > those are things they need to know, and although the advice they may > receive on some rulings will differ according to the school of law or the > cultural practices of their specific community, that has no bearing > whatever on British law. > > But much more goes on beneath the surface. One problem is that it is > difficult if not impossible to reform sharia. Legal rulings are fossilized > within one tradition or another and given permanency because they are > deemed to derive from a combination of verses from the Qur'an, the sacred > Traditions, or the standard books of *fiqh* or jurisprudence. It is, > therefore, hard to restate laws on just about anything in order to > accommodate a need to bring things up-to-date within terms of modern > Western human rights values. Many Muslims today may be uncomfortable about > the use of jihad as a rallying cry for terrorist organizations such as the > Islamic State, but no single scholar or group of scholars is entitled to > abolish the long-standing law of jihad. Innovation (*bid'a*) > <https://ebrahimsaifuddin.wordpress.com/2010/02/13/explaining-bida/> is > tantamount to heresy, and heresy leads to excommunication and hellfire, as > has been stated for centuries. The growing influence of Salafi Islam is > based precisely on the grounds that any revival of the faith means going > back to the practices and words of Muhammad and his companions, not > forwards via reform. > > In the sharia councils there appears to be no formal method for keeping > records of what is said and decided on. There is next to no room for > non-Muslims to sit in on proceedings, and, as a result, neither the > government nor the legal fraternity has any regular means of monitoring > proceedings. Even Machteld Zee, whose forthcoming book, *Choosing Sharia? > Multiculturalism, Islamic Fundamentalism and British Sharia Councils > <http://www.amazon.co.uk/Choosing-Sharia-Machteld-Zee/dp/9462366349/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1449961457&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=zee%2C+Choosing+Sharia%3F+Multiculturalism%2C+Islamic+Fundamentalism+and+British+Sharia+Councils>,* > > will be the first academic analysis of what happens in the councils, only > spent two afternoons at a council in Leyton and an afternoon at one in > Birmingham. Unannounced spot checks by qualified government-appointed > personnel are not permitted. There is nothing remotely like the government > schools inspection body, Ofsted, which has periodically (albeit not always > correctly) gone into Muslim schools. So there is really no way of knowing > just what happens, apart from the testimonies of women who have reported > abusive or ill > ... -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
