Saturday, July 05, 2008

Islamapartheid in the UK

If the reports that Britain's Lord Chief Justice has defended the "right" of Muslims in Britain to live according to Sharia law, and if this is in any way representative of modern British legal thought, then perhaps, after all, it wasn't such a bad thing to remove NZ's link to the Privy Council.  Reports SOLO's Marcus Bachler:

    "I thought at the time similar separatist lunacy was being voiced by the Archbishop of Canterbury he was standing in an asylum of his own building. Supposedly even the Muslim Council of Britain did not support his view. However, today it is reported in the Daily Telegraph that Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the Lord Chief Justice, supports him. Baroness Warsi, the Conservative shadow-Minister for Community Cohesion, also backs the judge.
    "Lord Phillips is quoted from a speech he gave to the East London Muslim Centre: 'There is no reason why principles of Sharia law, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution.' According to the article, he means that Muslims in Britain should be able to use Sharia to decide financial and marital disputes.
    "This is a scary development, whereby Muslims are being encouraged by wealthy bleeding-heart liberals to embrace their religion and carry on treating their women like cattle and distinguish themselves legally and culturally from everyone else.
"I hope this nonsense will be shouted down again as it was after Rowan Williams's speech.

UPDATE:  On a related note, read  'Then they came for the puppies, and I did not speak out....' posted at Laissez Faire. "The new Islamist Frontier seems to be the removal of images of dogs from society. One can guess what they have in mind for the actual dogs."

Labels: , ,

5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh for fucks sake, I though you believed in freedom.

If I want to live by Sharia law, to settle business dealings or my marriage according to Sharia law or Catholic law or the Beit Din what the fuck is that to do with you, or any nanny state.

Nothing at all, dickhead.

Marriage laws are nothing to do with the state.
Commercial contracts are nothing to do with the state.
"Human Rights" are nothing to do with the state - none of the lefty ones anyway.

The job of the state is to guarantee private property rights and personal freedoms up to the point that an individual sells their property or signs over their freedom. After that it (and you) should fuck off.

If I take a mortgage I've lost the "freedom" do to what I want with my house.
If I take a job I've lost the "freedom" to do what I want with my time
If I take a marriage I've lost the "Freedom" to do a whole lot of things

None of them need to be infringed by the state, or complained about by pseudo-freedom loving bloggers.

Rather, we should be pleased that for once, the state is getting out of the way and letting people make whatever arrangements they want to - especially if they are repugnant to us

7/06/2008 04:01:00 am  
Anonymous hanso said...

Anon: The problem is that Sharia law frequently infringes upon human rights. These people are demanding the right to be pardoned of their crimes (or allowed to commit future ones) under the pretense of their religion.

7/06/2008 09:54:00 am  
Blogger libertyscott said...

Anonymous makes a point - no harm in Sharia law guiding what people do within a free society. Marriage would only be a contract in a free society so let sharia law define that for those who wish it, as long as there is consent (and within limits such as not contracting to agree to do criminal acts).

Beyond that there is an issue, but really I don't care if Muslims want to have commercial contracts with each other under Sharia terms, or marriages or loans- the key is choice.

Naturally nobody should enforce sharia on the unwilling, but that's what the state exists for. The same could be said for any sort of Maori law that some have advocated for civil disputes and the like. If under common law you contract to undertake agreements with another party under a subordinate set of rules, procedures then why not?

It of course should only apply to civil matters not criminal, but let a thousand flowers bloom.

7/06/2008 02:06:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


It of course should only apply to civil matters not criminal, but let a thousand flowers bloom.


Why not?

If you steal from a moslem, let them chop of your hand I say!

7/07/2008 06:41:00 am  
Anonymous LGM said...

Yeah, but they ARE out to have it apply to criminal law. There is also a push to have it recognised and applied to non-moslems (under various circumstances) whether they conceded or not. Then there is the issue of the apostate. They are not allowed to walk away- according to their ex-religion, they always fall under its requirement.

In the end it does matter. Attempts to build an apartheid system soon rots a society. Eventually one or other system of rules and culture clashes with the other. One becomes subordinate to the other. The way things are proceding in the UK presently don't be surprsed to see the sharia law take more and more ground. Watch as the non-beliveres get their Individual Rights nullified.



LGM

7/07/2008 06:45:00 am  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home