Baroness Cox Takes a Stand Against Sharia

Caroline Cox is a cross-bench member of the British House of Lords and a staunch opponent of Sharia in the UK. She appeared recently on the BBC with Nigel Farage of UKIP to discuss her proposed bill that would close loopholes in British law that allow women to be oppressed and discriminated against in the country’s notorious sharia courts.

The following clip was taken from that BBC segment. Pay special attention to what the female Muslim lawyer has to say about the effects of sharia on women in Britain:

Below are excerpts from a report in The Daily Mail about Baroness Cox’s bill:

Muslim men in some communities in Britain are having up to 20 children each with multiple wives under Sharia law, potentially leaving the youngsters ‘vulnerable to extremism’, peers warn.

Cross-bench peer Baroness Cox said yesterday the men’s behavior is creating ‘dysfunctional families’ — with some divorcing their wives by simply saying or writing ‘I divorce you’ three times.

She also gave a number of ‘shocking examples’ of how the Islamic legal system ‘discriminates’ against Muslim women, whom she said needed better protection under equality legislation.

Addressing the House of Lords, she said one woman had told her: ‘I feel betrayed by Britain. I came here to get away from this and the situation is worse here than in the country I escaped from.’


Baroness Cox then spoke of how her Muslim friends had told her that in some communities in the UK ‘with high polygamy and divorce rates, men may have up to 20 children each’.

‘Clearly, youngsters growing up in dysfunctional families may be vulnerable to extremism, she said.

She added that ‘demography may affect democracy’.

In another example of how Muslim women need greater protection, Baroness Cox told the story of ‘Roma’ — not her real name — who suffered physical abuse at the hands of her Pakistani husband.

She ‘did everything possible to avoid a divorce’ out of fear of being rejected by her community — but when her husband failed to obtain a visa to enter Britain, he divorced her under Islamic law.

He did so by sending her a piece of paper featuring the words ‘I divorce you’ three times, she said.

Baroness Cox said a loophole in the Equality Act was allowing Sharia courts to discriminate against women — and said her Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill would help protect them.

The bill ‘will strengthen the position of vulnerable women who need protection from exploitation. It will ensure that all such women, whatever sect or creed, get the help they need to enjoy full lives’.

We must not tolerate the sweeping of violence against women or children under the carpet by any religion in the name of faith.’

She added that she had been told ‘thousands of Muslim women’ are backing her bill.

According to Baroness Cox, around 100,000 couples in Britain are currently in Islamic marriages that are not recognised by English law, leaving them at a legal disadvantage.

Hat tip: Gaia.

13 thoughts on “Baroness Cox Takes a Stand Against Sharia

  1. These issues were decided at the height of the empire? No? Seems way past bedtime for the British slave traders. Hopefully the new social model is shifting from Pakistan to at least the Balkans and not too much Syria.

  2. I read about this in the Telegraph. I am sorry, but this goes nowhere. The only feature “Baroness” Cox can discern in this issue, and, to be fair, her opining “peers”, too, is that “Sharia Law is leading to ‘shocking’ discrimination against Muslim women”? It seems that two tiny trifles have escaped her (and their) attention:
    (1) What those 20 Muslim children-per-single-Muslim man do to the demographics of the UK;
    (2) The seeder and the multiple wombs were imported from backward Muzland; they and their brood of 20 live off the British taxpayer…

    And she a former Director of the “Conservative Philosophy Group.” God protect us from this sort of “conservatives” and “peers.”

  3. As far as polygamy is concerned in the UK, it is unlawful – at least it is for British people. However, the Department of Work and Pensions will recognise multiple “marriages” for benefits purposes for up to four such partnerships providing three of the “marriages” took place outside the UK.

    I have followed the career of Caroline Cox since we corresponded after the publication of her book “The West, Islam and Islamism” which she co-wrote with John Marks. While matters have moved on,albeit downwards, since the publication of this book, the sentiments are still valid and while we have people prepared to stand up to the threats and bullying of the red/green axis there is hope.

    • why does noone mention in this discussion that “marriage under sharia” is only folklore and in reality no marriage at all? Noone protects women who “marry” under the tentacles of the big spaghetti monster. So why does anyone want to protect sharia women?

      Even Farage does not say it clearly. Those women are NOT married at all. Its a wild marriage under UK law and should be treated exactly as such.

      • I agree but the status of the relationship is irrelevant. It is entitlement of the “spouse” to benefits and/or citizenship that is surely the issue.

        When our aging workforce becomes too old and infirm to support these parasites, who will support them then?

  4. They didn’t make very clear what the Anglo-Saxon courts are not able to address, with these people. So to me it seems like the lifestyle of these people is the problem, to begin with. Poligamamous marriage can’t be addressed by British courts–if it’s illegal. So logically Muslims would NEED their own courts.

    Trial by jury, an elected parliament and a free press are Englands greatest gift to the world. No other legal system has these.

  5. They are able to get away with not registering 80% of under-30 marriages because they have reached a critical mass of mosques and ghettoes that have allowed them to establish a completely parallel, completely functional society within the borders of the UK.

    • there is absolutely nothing to “get away” with. These 80% couples are not married, so no need to registrate anything. Thats a legal fact. They think they are, but its not true. In truth these people are living in wild marriages. There is only one law and thats not sharia

      The only correct and short answer Fargage should have given is that these marriages have no legal background and so this TV discussion about compensation etc. is absolutely superflous.

  6. Big part of the problem is the notion that our, the West’s, main concern with Islam is that it causes problems for Muslim women. And Muslim children.

    Who cares? Our society is heading for disaster, violence and war as a result of Muslim invasion.. Yet we are supposed to be deeply concerned about the welfare of the wives and children of the invaders?

  7. “According to Baroness Cox, around 100,000 couples in Britain are currently in Islamic marriages that are not recognised by English law, leaving them at a legal disadvantage.”

    They are “not recognised” in the sense that it is has been compulsory since 1837 to register marriages with the State; many Muslims do not bother; and the authorities are not interested in chasing them. Many of the marriages are bigamous, which breaks another law. Yes, it is as if unregistered Muslim marriages are not recognised by the State; but the government will never say so because they are terrified of disrespecting Muslims.

Comments are closed.