Category: UK

  • Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts

    Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts

    ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

    The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.
    Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.
    Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.
    It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.
    Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.
    Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.
    Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.”
    The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future “seems unavoidable” in Britain.
    In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.
    In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.
    It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.
    Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. “All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,” said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.
    Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes.. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.
    Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a “parallel legal system” based on sharia for some British Muslims.
    Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.”
    Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “I think it’s appalling. I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.”
    There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.
    Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.
    The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.
    In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.
    In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.
    Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.
    Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.”
    Additional reporting: Helen Brooks
    Source: , September 14, 2008
  • Holidaymakers stranded in Turkey

    Holidaymakers stranded in Turkey

    Up to 150 people have been left stranded in Turkey after the collapse of a north London-based tour operator.

    K&S Travel, which also trades under the name Travel Turkey, organises package tours to the country through flights chartered with Onur Air.

    A K&S Travel spokesman said the firm would organise flights for those abroad when their holidays were completed.

    It is thought more than 85,000 people have been left stranded abroad after Friday’s collapse of XL Leisure Group.

    XL is the UK’s third largest tour operator.

    The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) said the holidaymakers were covered by the Atol protection scheme and will be entitled to a full refund.

    The CAA is understood to be rechartering planes from Onur to ensure the return of K&S passengers, most of whom are in the resort of Bodrum.

    But 460 people who have future holidays booked through K&S Travel will have their travel plans cancelled.

    BBC NEWS | UK | England | London | Holidaymakers stranded in Turkey

  • Lavrov never used foul language with Miliband – Russian ministry

    Lavrov never used foul language with Miliband – Russian ministry

     
    16:18 | 13/ 09/ 2008
     

    MOSCOW, September 13 (RIA Novosti) – The Russian Foreign Ministry denied on Saturday British media reports that the head of the Russian diplomatic body, Sergei Lavrov, used foul language talking to his British counterpart David Miliband.

    British media circulated reports on Friday night and early Saturday that Minister Lavrov scolded British Foreign Secretary Miliband and even used foul language as they discussed over a telephone the recent situation in Georgia.

    “It is inadmissible in the practice of diplomacy. The use of foul language either means insulting a partner or insulting a country, which he represents. Therefore, I categorically reject such insults against our minister,” Andrei Nesterenko, a spokesman for the Russian ministry, said.

    He added that the ministry is preparing the full script of the conversation between the top diplomats and will soon publish it on the official website.

    A spokesman for the British Foreign Office said Britain will not comment on the conversation between Lavrov and Miliband, but will be very interested in what the Russian Foreign Ministry publishes on its website.

  • Protest threat over Met race row

    Protest threat over Met race row

    Sir Ian is being threatened with a vote of
    no confidence in his leadership
    Ethnic minority police officers could march outside Scotland Yard after the country’s most senior Asian police officer was given “authorised leave”.

    The National Black Police Association (NBPA) also threatened a recruitment boycott after Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur was relieved of duties.

    Mr Ghaffur has alleged that Sir Ian Blair, head of the Met, racially discriminated against him.

    The NBPA wants an urgent meeting with the Home Secretary over the issue.

    The association wants Jacqui Smith to appoint an independent figure to mediate between the two sides.

    Mr Ghaffur is taking his claim of racial and religious discrimination to a tribunal.

    ‘Business as usual’

    The row between Met bosses and Mr Ghaffur escalated following comments made by the Asian officer at a news conference.

    Deputy Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson said it was inappropriate for the row to be conducted in public and said Mr Ghaffur should “shut up”.

    Sir Ian has said the decision to temporarily relieve Mr Ghaffur of his responsibilities was because of the way he had “chosen to conduct himself” in the media.

    But the NBPA insisted it was being viewed as an “attack on black officers”.

    The source claimed that “veiled threats” of disciplinary action had been made by the Met against the chairman of the Met’s Black Police Association, Alfred John, for statements and comments that he made at the Ghaffur news conference.

    The NBPA is arranging an emergency meeting for its officials on Thursday or Friday to consider what action it can take.

    Among other ideas being considered by its members will be a vote of no confidence in Sir Ian.

    A Scotland Yard spokesman said this morning that it was “business as normal” and dismissed suggestions that a “race war” was engulfing the organisation.

    BBC

  • Met Chief Accused Of Racism

    Met Chief Accused Of Racism

    Accused: Sir Ian Blair

    The UK’s most senior policeman has been accused of a racist campaign against one of his closest colleagues.

     

    According to a source close to Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur, his legal representatives formally submitted his employment tribunal claims on Friday night.

    They include allegations that Scotland Yard Commissioner Sir Ian Blair and other senior members of the Met played a role in a campaign of harassment and discrimination against him.

    The source said: “Ghaffur is very unhappy because the Met is briefing against him.”Details of the claim will not be available to anyone until next week.”Sir Ian has rejected the claims and said he has a “long, honourable and occasionally blood-stained record on the championing of diversity”.

    A Metropolitan Police spokesman said he was not aware any papers had been lodged.No one at the tribunal was available to comment.It is the first time an officer of such seniority has sued the Met and it threatens to plunge the force’s leadership into crisis.

    Mr Ghaffur is understood to be claiming hundreds of thousands of pounds in loss of earnings and damages.A rift between the two senior officers emerged in June with news of an allegedly damning dossier of evidence prepared by Mr Ghaffur.

    Colleagues said the officer, who is responsible for Olympic security preparations, has been treated “extremely poorly”.Attempts to head off a full-scale employment tribunal with mediation failed after the two parties could not even agree the terms for talks.

    It emerged earlier this week that Mr Ghaffur was bugged and photographed as part of an investigation into another senior officer.Officers recorded meetings between Mr Ghaffur and Commander Ali Dizaei in 2000 and 2001 as part of an ill-fated corruption inquiry.

    Mr Dizaei was cleared of perverting the course of justice and fiddling his expenses at the Old Bailey in 2003.

    Sir Ian has already been forced to defend his record on diversity at an employment tribunal this year.

    Commander Shabir Hussain, another of his most senior colleagues, claimed he was repeatedly overlooked for promotion in favour of white candidates.

    The 45-year-old officer has alleged racial discrimination against the Metropolitan Police Authority, its chairman Len Duvall and Sir Ian.

    A decision by the tribunal panel is expected within the next month.

    Sky News

    Link:

  • Police in crisis after jury rejects £10m terror case

    Police in crisis after jury rejects £10m terror case

    Police and prosecutors were locked in crisis meetings last night after what they believed to be the strongest terrorism case ever presented to a court was rejected by a jury.

    At the end of a £10 million investigation and trial lasting more than two years, jurors were unable to decide whether or not a group of British Muslims were part of a plot to blow transatlantic airliners out of the sky.

    The outcome of the case – which featured al-Qaeda-style martyrdom videos made by six defendants – will be seen as a severe blow to Britain’s anti-terrorist effort.

    Three men were convicted of conspiracy to murder, but the jury was deadlocked on the central allegation, that terrorists planned to use liquid bombs to destroy aircraft en route from Heathrow to cities in the United States and Canada.

    The jury’s indecision in the face of a detailed Crown case raises questions about the public perception of the terror threat that could undermine government attempts to introduce further security legislation.

    The Crown Prosecution Service indicated that it was likely to seek the retrial of seven men in an attempt to prove that there was a plan to attack aircraft and kill thousands of people.

    The discovery of the plot, in August 2006, led to a global security clamp-down at airports that paralysed international travel.The alert resulted in restrictions on carrying liquids in cabin baggage that remain in force and are unlikely to be relaxed.

    Retrials are being sought even though the jury at Woolwich Crown Court convicted three of the eight defendants of conspiracy to murder.

    Prosecutors met to discuss their options amid concern that the jury could not decide on a separate charge specifying that airliners had been the targets of that conspiracy.

    The jurors also failed to reach verdicts on serious terrorist charges against four other men, who had recorded al-Qaeda-style suicide videos and admitted charges of conspiring to cause a public nuisance.

    Another defendant, described in court as a shadowy figure with terrorist connections, was acquitted of all charges and cannot be retried.

    The jurors deliberated for 52 hours, but their discussions were disrupted by a two-week holiday, frequent sickness breaks and other commitments.

    Scotland Yard refrained from comment last night, but the senior officers of their disappointment over the outcome of the case.

    Andy Hayman, former assistant commissioner for special operations, said: “This was one of our strongest cases – there will have to be an intensive debrief. But now is not the time for that, now is the time to prepare for retrials.”

    A CPS spokesman said: “The jury found there was a conspiracy to murder involving at least three men but failed to reach a verdict on whether the ambit of the conspiracy to murder included the allegation that they intended to detonate IEDs (improvised explosive devices) on transatlantic airliners in relation to seven of the men. It is therefore incorrect to say that the jury rejected the airline bomb plot.”

    The men convicted of conspiracy to murder were Ahmed Abdulla Ali and Tanvir Hussain, both 27 and from Walthamstow, northeast London, and Assad Sarwar, 28, of High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire. The four men on whom the jury failed to reach verdicts were Ibrahim Savant, 27, Arafat Waheed Khan, 27, Waheed Zaman, 24, and Umar Islam, 30.

    Mohammed Gulzar, 27, from Birmingham, was acquitted on charges of conspiracy to murder and conspiring to murder by blowing up aircraft. He had vigorously denied any involvement. The Crown had alleged that Mr Gulzar, who arrived in Britain using a false name during July 2006, was a key figure in the alleged airline plot but the jury rejected that case.

    Home Office sources said that Mr Gulzar would be the subject of a control order and it is expected that he will be questioned by police in connection with a serious criminal offence committed in Birmingham in 2002. Another key figure in the plot, Rashid Rauf, is on the run in Pakistan after escaping from custody.

    Four further trials related to the alleged airline plot are pending.

    Source: business.timesonline.co.uk, September 9, 2008