What if the law were enforced differently for different religions?

[Mycroft]

It looks like Aussies could find out:

Police told to respect traditions
Liam Houlihan, religious affairs reporter
25oct05

POLICE are being advised to treat Muslim domestic violence cases differently out of respect for Islamic traditions and habits.

Officers are also being urged to work with Muslim leaders, who will try to keep the families together.

Women's groups are concerned the politically correct policing could give comfort to wife bashers and keep their victims in a cycle of violence.

The instructions come in a religious diversity handbook given to Victorian police officers that also recommends special treatment for suspects of Aboriginal, Hindu and Buddhist background.

Hey! There are fundamentalist Christians who like to beat their women too, what about them!

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/printpage/0,5481,17026063,00.html

[The Fool]

It looks like Aussies could find out:



Hey! There are fundamentalist Christians who like to beat their women too, what about them!

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/printpage/0,5481,17026063,00.html

from the link.

"The implication is one needs to be more tolerant of violence against Muslim women but they should be entitled to the same protection," Ms El Matrah said."

Is this an implication you are planning to work on?

I know of no evidence that there is more tolerance of violence against muslim women in australia or that any publications issued to australian police advocate that. maybe you could find some...?

[Cleon]

Hrm. When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it might be about the different standards and discrimination non-Jews face in Israel.

My mistake.

[zenith-nadir]

Hrm. When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it might be about the different standards and discrimination non-Jews face in Israel.

My mistake.You mean different standards and discrimination like this?

Jamil Muhammed Qa'adan, 48, from Baka al-Garbiyeh, was laid to rest in the town where he lived. Jamil was an inspector for the Haifa district of the Education Ministry. In the afternoon, Jamil told his wife, Fatima, a teacher in Baka al-Garbiyeh, that he was going to do some shopping in Gan Shmuel before stopping at his bank in Hadera. When the iftir meal that breaks the Ramadan fast came and Jamil had not returned, the family began to fear the worst. The fears were confirmed when two family members went to the Hillel Yaffeh Medical Center in Hadera and were given the bad news.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/638507.htmlJamil Muhammed Qa'adan was a victim of Wednesday's Palestinian suicide bombing in the market of the coastal city of Hadera.

A Christian Arab university student was buried on Sunday after Palestinian terrorists, who assumed he was Jewish, shot and killed him while he was jogging in a Jerusalem neighborhood. George Khouri, 20, was shot twice in the head, once in the neck and once in the stomach on Friday night. Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade apologized for the killing on Saturday after it became apparent that they killed an Arab, not a Jew.

http://www.icej.org/cgi-local/view.cgi?type=headline&artid=2004/03/22/586720663Khouri’s father, Elias Khouri, a prominent lawyer who has defended many Palestinian causes, rejected the Islamic insinuation of martyrdom conferred upon his son.

The survivors could only guess at why Hanadi Jaradat chose Maxim's restaurant to create carnage but many concluded the attack was deliberately aimed at a rare oasis of coexistence between Arabs and Jews. Four of the 19 people murdered by the female Palestinian suicide bomber in Haifa on Saturday were Arabs. They died inside the restaurant owned jointly by the same Jewish and Arab families for 40 years; and they all lived in a city more at ease with a mixed population than most in Israel.

Maxim's was founded by two families - one Jewish, the Tayyars; the other Christian Arab, the Matars - at the southern entrance to the port city. It has been in the hands of the same families ever since. "For 40 years we have been one large family, Arabs and Jews," said Orli Nir, the daughter of the restaurant's Jewish founders.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1056820,00.htmlOne of the restaurant's Arab owners, George Matar, was talking to his wife Ilham on the phone when the bomb went off.


Damn those discriminating Israelis!

[Cleon]

More like this:

(From http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0198/9801088.html)

Israeli Discrimination Against Non-Jews Is Carefully Codified in State of Israel's Laws


By Dr. Israel Shahak

The legal system of the State of Israel can be described as a weird mixture of advanced democracy and retrogressive discrimination, combined with clumsy attempts to hide the discriminatory reality. For example, in all Israeli laws except one, the Law of Return, the word "Jew" does not appear. The term employed when the law gives discriminatory privileges to Jews is that those privileges are granted to "persons who would have benefited from the Law of Return had they been outside the borders of Israel." The Law of Return specifies that its benefits can be given only to Jews. However, Israeli propagandists calculate, correctly in my view, that a great majority of the opponents of discrimination would not dare to criticize this law.


From http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel2/


SECOND CLASS
Discrimination Against Palestinian
Arab Children in Israel's Schools




<div align="left">
From http://www.answers.com/topic/israeli-arab

[quote]
Discrimination Against Israeli Arabs

According to the 2004 (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=3puj2h298l4j?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=2004&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc03a) U.S. State Department (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=3puj2h298l4j?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=United+States+Department+of+State&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc03a) Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=3puj2h298l4j?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Country+Reports+on+Human+Rights+Practices&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc03a) for Israel and the occupied territories, the Israeli government "did little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens."[1] (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41723.htm) (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41723.htm)
Examples of discrimination (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=3puj2h298l4j?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Discrimination&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc03a) against Israeli Arabs cited in the State Department report include the following:

"According to a 2003 Haifa University (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=3puj2h298l4j?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=University+of+Haifa&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc03a) study, a tendency existed to impose heavier prison terms to Arab citizens than to Jewish (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=3puj2h298l4j?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Jew&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc03a) citizens. Human rights advocates claimed that Arab citizens were more likely to be convicted of murder and to have been denied bail."
"Government spending on children was proportionally lower in predominantly Arab areas than in Jewish areas. ... According to the Government's February 2002 report to the U.N., government investment per Arab pupil was approximately 60 percent of investment per Jewish pupil. ... According to Human Rights Watch (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=3puj2h298l4j?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Human+Rights+Watch&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc03a), during the year, the Government provided 1 teacher for every 16 Jewish primary school children compared to 1 teacher for every 19.7 Arab children. "
"The Orr Commission of Inquiry's report ... stated that the 'Government handling of the Arab sector has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory,' that the Government 'did not show sufficient sensitivity to the needs of the Arab population, and did not take enough action to allocate state resources in an equal manner.' As a result, 'serious distress prevailed in the Arab sector in various areas. Evidence of distress included poverty (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=3puj2h298l4j?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Poverty&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc03a), unemployment (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=3puj2h298l4j?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Unemployment&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc03a), a shortage of land, serious problems in the education system, and substantially defective infrastructure.'"
"In November, the Israeli-Arab advocacy NGO Sikkuy's annual report stated that 45 percent of Arab families were poor, in contrast to 15 percent of Jewish families, and that the rate of infant mortality (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=3puj2h298l4j?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Infant+mortality&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc03a) in the Arab sector was 8 out of 1,000 births--twice that of the Jewish population."
"According to a report by Mossawa, racist (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=3puj2h298l4j?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Racism&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc03a) violence against Arab citizens has increased, and the Government has not done enough to prevent this problem. The annual report cited 17 acts of violence by Jewish citizens against Arab citizens. ... A Haifa University poll released in June revealed that over 63 percent of Jews believed that the Government should encourage Israeli Arabs to emigrate (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=3puj2h298l4j?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Emigration&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc03a)." <ul> "Approximately 93 percent of land in the country was public domain (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=3puj2h298l4j?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Public+domain&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc03a), including that owned by the state and some 12.5 percent owned by the Jewish National Fund (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=3puj2h298l4j?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Jewish+National+Fund&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc03a) (JNF). All public land by law may only be leased, not sold. The JNF's statutes prohibit the sale or lease of land to non-Jews. In October, civil rights groups petitioned the High Court of Justice claiming that a bid announcement by the Israel Land Administration (ILA)%2

[Lisa Simpson]

There was a case, I think here in SoCal, where a guy tried to claim that his beating his wife was allowed by the First Amendment. He was some right-wing Catholic. It didn't fly with the judge.

The article didn't mention what the special treatment for Buddhists is. I want to know, just in case I ever go to Australia. I need to know what I can get away with.

Come to think of it, I demand as probably the world's only Apathetic Agnostic Buddhist Tacoist Pastafarian, all kinds of special treatment. I need more days off from work to...eat tacos. Yeah, that's it.

[zenith-nadir]

The thread title is about treating people differently under the law based on religion, after all.Of course you'll point the finger at Israel. That is what you excel at Cleon. This thread is about Australia and muslims... but BAM!.... you tossed in the "mean ol'Israel" reference within two posts. Congradualtions! A new JREF derail world record. And look you even used BIG LETTERS and such to point your finger at Israel in a thread about Australia and muslims.

Meanwhile as you focus everyones' attention on mean old Israel - the boogey man - the fact that Arabs face far harsher discrimination in their own countries than they do in Israel shall be omitted. Arab women face harsher discrimination in Saudia Arabia than all Arabs do in Israel...but nevermind that piece of trivia. Nor will you offer any sort of balanced report showing that jews have no rights whatsoever in many Arab countries.

But don't mind me, I am just passing through to expose your hypocrisy.

Have a nice day.

[Cleon]

Of course you'll point the finger at Israel. That is what you excel at Cleon. This thread is about Australia and muslims... but BAM!.... you tossed in the "mean ol'Israel" reference within two posts. Congradualtions! A new JREF derail world record. And look you even used BIG LETTERS and such to point your finger at Israel in a thread about Australia and muslims.
Whine, whine, whine. Note that I said:


Hrm. When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it might be about the different standards and discrimination non-Jews face in Israel.

My mistake.

The fact that you couldn't leave it at "my mistake" is your problem, not mine.

[Mojo]

There was a case, I think here in SoCal, where a guy tried to claim that his beating his wife was allowed by the First Amendment. He was some right-wing Catholic. It didn't fly with the judge.There was a case (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4293739.stm) a couple of years back in which a number of Christian schools attempted to use the Bible to get around a ban on corporal punishment. That didn't fly either.

[zenith-nadir]

The fact that you couldn't leave it at "my mistake" is your problem, not mine.Your backpedalling is pitiful. Deliberately posting a reference to Israel in a thread about Ausralia and muslims is not a "mistake". Unless you are now going to convince us all that logging in, typing said post, referencing Israel and selecting the submit reply button was all just a "mistake".

:boxedin:

[Cleon]

Your backpedalling is pitiful. Deliberately posting a reference to Israel in a thread about Ausralia and muslims is not a "mistake". Unless you are now going to convince us all that logging in, typing said post, referencing Israel and selecting the submit reply button was all just a "mistake".

Like I said, it's not my fault you couldn't leave it be.

:v:

[Manny]

Riiiight. You want to put in a plug for your terrorist buddies without contradiction. Ain't gonna happen, Osama.

[Cleon]

Riiiight. You want to put in a plug for your terrorist buddies without contradiction. Ain't gonna happen, Osama.

:rolleyes:

Yeaaaahhhh...

[Dorian Gray]

"What if the law were enforced differently for different religions?"

What do you mean, 'if'?

[Mycroft]

Cleon, ZN, if you guys want to discuss Israel, there is a button that allows you to start a new thread.

ZN, I know Cleon started it, but that doesn't mean you need to perpetuate it. You can still bash him in a new thread.

[TragicMonkey]

"What if the law were enforced differently for different religions?"

Don't they actually do that in the northern provinces of Nigeria? If I'm remembering this right, Muslims there get Sharia law, Christians and animists and others don't.

[Mojo]

"What if the law were enforced differently for different religions?"

Don't they actually do that in the northern provinces of Nigeria? If I'm remembering this right, Muslims there get Sharia law, Christians and animists and others don't.There have been moves afoot to introduce this sort of thing in Ontario, but it seems to have been knocked on the head: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4236762.stm

[curi0us]

Riiiight. You want to put in a plug for your terrorist buddies without contradiction. Ain't gonna happen, Osama.Are you calling Cleon Osama?

[Bob Klase]

Whine, whine, whine. Note that I said:

The fact that you couldn't leave it at "my mistake" is your problem, not mine.

Right- you just dropped in and said "don't think of a pink elephant, and don't write anything in this thread about pink elephants". Because we know that if you tell someone not to think about a pink elephant they would never think about a pink elephant.

[Mycroft]

from the link.

"The implication is one needs to be more tolerant of violence against Muslim women but they should be entitled to the same protection," Ms El Matrah said."

Is this an implication you are planning to work on?

I know of no evidence that there is more tolerance of violence against muslim women in australia or that any publications issued to australian police advocate that. maybe you could find some...?

From the article:

POLICE are being advised to treat Muslim domestic violence cases differently out of respect for Islamic traditions and habits.

[Bjorn]

"What if the law were enforced differently for different religions?"

Don't they actually do that in the northern provinces of Nigeria?They definately do it in some muslim countries, e.g. Malaysia and The Maldives both have laws that apply to muslims only. Generally speaking, non-muslims can do things muslims can't.

[Mycroft]

They definately do it in some muslim countries, e.g. Malaysia and The Maldives both have laws that apply to muslims only. Generally speaking, non-muslims can do things muslims can't.

Yeah, apparantly if you're a Muslim criminal in Indonesia, you may qualify for some benefits that non-Muslims don't.

Indonesia says jail terms of militants may be cut

JAKARTA (Reuters) - Indonesia's Justice Minister Hamid Awaluddin said militants convicted under anti-terrorism laws, including cleric Abu Bakar Bashir, are eligible for a reduction in their jail terms to mark a major Muslim holiday.

The move, expected this week to mark Eid al-Fitr that falls on November 3, is likely to irritate some foreign countries, especially Australia, which lost 88 citizens in the 2002 Bali bombings.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051031/wl_nm/security_indonesia_dc

This is truly outrageous.

[Bjorn]

Yeah, apparantly if you're a Muslim criminal in Indonesia, you may qualify for some benefits that non-Muslims don't.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051031/wl_nm/security_indonesia_dc

This is truly outrageous.Correct me if I'm wrong, but I couldn't find anything there about laws being different for muslims and non-muslims.

[Mycroft]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I couldn't find anything there about laws being different for muslims and non-muslims.

You know you're right. It could be that non-Muslims may also have their sentences reduced on these Muslim holidays.

It would be worthwhile learning by what criteria it was decided who would have their sentences reduced.

[Manny]

Granding amnesties to criminals on Eid al-adha and Eid ul-fitr is traditional in Muslim countries. Rules vary from place to place but generally do not demand that the person receiving amnesty be Muslim. It appears here that Indonesia is complying with a law which failed to take into account the current circumstances. That may be unfortunated on a "lock the bastards up" basis, but compliance with the rule of law is something developed countries do. They should change the law but until then they should not ignore it.

There are other amnesties in Muslim countries which are religiously based. For example, many countries offer a reduction in sentence for some crimes if the offender memorizes the Koran.

[Bjorn]

You know you're right. It could be that non-Muslims may also have their sentences reduced on these Muslim holidays.

It would be worthwhile learning by what criteria it was decided who would have their sentences reduced.Although I'm aware that most prisoners in Indonesian prisons are muslims ... it seems to be for all, and not only on muslim holidays:

Such a regular prison remission program grants jail term cuts to prisoners with good conduct if they have already served at least six months of their sentence, on Independence Day and religious holidays.http://www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp?fileid=20051014.A04

Independence Day remission program routinely granted to tens of thousands of inmateshttp://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/s1491546.htm

[Jocko]

From the article:

POLICE are being advised to treat Muslim domestic violence cases differently out of respect for Islamic traditions and habits.

Or this:
They are told it would be appreciated in cases of domestic violence if police consult the local Muslim religious leader who will work against "fragmenting the family unit".

That sounds to me like adbidacting a criminal investigation in favor of mediation - which would be fine by me except it's without the consent of the allegedly abused. How do I know it's without consent? Because it's a call made by the police, not a judge.

If the cops are more willing to pursue a prosecution against a non-muslim, then hell yeah, that's discrimination.

[The Fool]

Or this:


That sounds to me like adbidacting a criminal investigation in favor of mediation - which would be fine by me except it's without the consent of the allegedly abused. How do I know it's without consent? Because it's a call made by the police, not a judge.

how have you stretched telling police to consider involvement of imams who may be able to help the family into the imams being legal mediators in the domestic violence case? There are some laws in australia that allow minor crime to be taken care of by indigenous councils of elders but nothing regarding mediation of criminal acts by men of religion, of any religion.

[/quote]
If the cops are more willing to pursue a prosecution against a non-muslim, then hell yeah, that's discrimination.[/QUOTE]
yes it would be... but I can find no evidence that such a practice occurs and this is not claimed in this article....

[Jocko]

yes it would be... but I can find no evidence that such a practice occurs and this is not claimed in this article....

I would like to know how this could play out in any way that doesn't equate to handing a criminal matter over to a non-sanctioned, non-police authority. Remember, this isn't a civil case. We're talking about wife beating here.

If there was a rule on the books "encouraging" officers to refer domestic violence cases to a priest, would that make any sense? A rabbi? A haberdasher?

Mediation is generally used in civil cases. Divorce and such. Criminal matters aren't really eligible, at least not here in the states. Are things handled differently there?

[The Fool]

I would like to know how this could play out in any way that doesn't equate to handing a criminal matter over to a non-sanctioned, non-police authority. Remember, this isn't a civil case. We're talking about wife beating here.

If there was a rule on the books "encouraging" officers to refer domestic violence cases to a priest, would that make any sense? A rabbi? A haberdasher?

Mediation is generally used in civil cases. Divorce and such. Criminal matters aren't really eligible, at least not here in the states. Are things handled differently there?
once again you are suggesting that domestic violence will be "refered" to someone. Where does it say that? That is simply an inference drawn without evidence by a person quoted in the article...

The only thing I can say is that to tell police to ignore crime and refer it to someone without any standing under law is against the law. My inference from the article is that police are being encouraged to involve imams in helping lessen the impact of domestic violence on the family. Just as police are encouraged to involve councils of indigenous elders in domestic vioence cases to provide support to those affected...There is nothing in there that indicates to me that imams are going to determine charges or punishments.

[The Fool]

From the article:

POLICE are being advised to treat Muslim domestic violence cases differently out of respect for Islamic traditions and habits.
what do you think is meant by treating the case differently? The inference you are working on here is that these directives are aimed at having Muslims treated more leniently in domestic violence cases in this country...Is that correct?

Is reminding police about the customs concerning shoes and hats on entering various religions churches anything to do with applying the law to criminal acts differently? Is encouraging police to involve Imams in helping to lessen the impact of acts of domestic violence on the family applying the law to criminal acts differently?

So besides exercising your problems with muslims with your OP suggestion that they like to beat thier women...whats your point?

[Jocko]

once again you are suggesting that domestic violence will be "refered" to someone. Where does it say that? That is simply an inference drawn without evidence by a person quoted in the article...

Not in the least. It clearly says:

They are told it would be appreciated in cases of domestic violence if police consult the local Muslim religious leader who will work against "fragmenting the family unit".

If a domestic violence case exists, then it has (allegedly) occurred, no? I understand what you're saying, but I don't think this is entirely a preventative measure. If it was, I'd be all for it. But here they mention "cases of domestic violence," not "the phenomenon of domestic violence."

The only thing I can say is that to tell police to ignore crime and refer it to someone without any standing under law is against the law. My inference from the article is that police are being encouraged to involve imams in helping lessen the impact of domestic violence on the family. Just as police are encouraged to involve councils of indigenous elders in domestic vioence cases to provide support to those affected...There is nothing in there that indicates to me that imams are going to determine charges or punishments.

Agreed re: counseling, but I'm not getting that from the language used in the article, as per my example above.

[Mycroft]

what do you think is meant by treating the case differently? The inference you are working on here is that these directives are aimed at having Muslims treated more leniently in domestic violence cases in this country...Is that correct?

From the article:

Women's groups are concerned the politically correct policing could give comfort to wife bashers and keep their victims in a cycle of violence.

[Soapy Sam]

You can't be king of Britain if you're a Kafflik. Particularly if your name is Stewart.
I doubt there's a ban on Jews or Muslims, as it would never have occurred to anyone that a ban was required, but my prediction is that King Moshe or Ibrahim is still some years off.

[The Fool]

Not in the least. It clearly says:
If a domestic violence case exists, then it has (allegedly) occurred, no? I understand what you're saying, but I don't think this is entirely a preventative measure. If it was, I'd be all for it. But here they mention "cases of domestic violence," not "the phenomenon of domestic violence."



Agreed re: counseling, but I'm not getting that from the language used in the article, as per my example above.

well the only thing I can say is that the words were...

"They are told it would be appreciated in cases of domestic violence if police consult the local Muslim religious leader who will work against "fragmenting the family unit". "

wheras what you seem concerned about is more like

They are told it would be appreciated in cases of domestic violence if police, rather than subjecting the perpetrator to the normal legal process, consult the local Muslim religious leader who will work against "fragmenting the family unit.

which is not what it is saying....Rather, to appears to me that police are being directed to use the influence that Imams may have in certain populations to lessen the impact of domestic violence on families....I really can't see anything about not applying the existing laws to anyone despite Mycrofts best efforts to suggest this is what is being proposed

[a_unique_person]

Like I said, it's not my fault you couldn't leave it be.

:v:

Like a dog with a bone.

[Beerina]

From the article:

POLICE are being advised to treat Muslim domestic violence cases differently out of respect for Islamic traditions and habits.

Actually that sickens me. Other people's worldviews do not strip my rights away.

Your religious views do not extend to the right to cut off parts of my genitalia when I am a baby.

How well did this attitude about other cultures suffice to defend white racists in the south of the US? I guess the recently late Rosa deserved her ticket...

[Beerina]

You can't be king of Britain if you're a Kafflik. Particularly if your name is Stewart.
I doubt there's a ban on Jews or Muslims, as it would never have occurred to anyone that a ban was required, but my prediction is that King Moshe or Ibrahim is still some years off.

Well, it's king in name only. The last guy to be king because he was the most skilled at killing off his political rivals was many generations ago. Being king because you "play by the rules others create, and permit you to do" has a severe romantic distaste to it.

[Mycroft]

"They are told it would be appreciated in cases of domestic violence if police consult the local Muslim religious leader who will work against "fragmenting the family unit". "

Okay, here are some parts that concern me. Take away the Islam part, that’s irrelevant, as these guidelines seem pretty stupid for all religions.

Officers are also being urged to work with Muslim leaders, who will try to keep the families together.

And…

They are told it would be appreciated in cases of domestic violence if police consult the local Muslim religious leader who will work against "fragmenting the family unit".

Meaning? Removing the abused from the abuser will be de-emphasized as a solution to domestic violence. The introduction of Muslim leaders means that community peer pressure will be applied to the abused to pressure them not to file charges, and not to leave an abusive situation.

This is a terrible step backwards for womens (as the most often abused) rights.